SAD refund cannot be denied for procedural defects or minor invoice mismatches when substantive conditions are satisfied.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be denied for mere procedural defects or minor documentary variations when the substantive refund conditions were satisfied. The absence of the endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible was treated as procedural only, so it did not defeat the claim. A minor mismatch between the Bill of Entry descriptions and sales invoice descriptions also could not bar refund where the imported and sold goods were the same. Likewise, the claim could not be rejected on the basis of alleged inadequacy in proof of the consignment sale agreement or sales tax liability when the agreement was produced and tax was shown to have been discharged.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund of special additional duty could be denied for absence of the endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible on SAD paid; (ii) whether refund could be rejected because the description of goods in the Bill of Entry did not exactly match the description in the sales invoices; and (iii) whether refund could be denied for alleged absence or inadequacy of proof regarding the consignment sale agreement and liability to bear sales tax.

Issue (i): whether refund of special additional duty could be denied for absence of the endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible on SAD paid.

Analysis: The endorsement requirement under paragraph 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was held to be a procedural condition. The absence of the endorsement, by itself, was not a valid ground to defeat the refund where the substantive conditions for grant of refund were otherwise satisfied.

Conclusion: Rejection of refund on this ground was unjustified and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether refund could be rejected because the description of goods in the Bill of Entry did not exactly match the description in the sales invoices.

Analysis: The goods imported and sold were found to be the same. The invoices used a generic description such as plastic granules, while the Bills of Entry carried the detailed grades. A minor variation in description, without any dispute as to identity of the goods, could not defeat the substantive refund benefit.

Conclusion: Rejection of refund on this ground was incorrect and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether refund could be denied for alleged absence or inadequacy of proof regarding the consignment sale agreement and liability to bear sales tax.

Analysis: The consignment sale agreement had been produced, and there was no dispute as to discharge of VAT or sales tax on the transactions. In such circumstances, the refund claim could not be rejected merely because the agreement did not expressly recite that the sales tax liability was fixed on the consignor.

Conclusion: Rejection of refund on this ground was without basis and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The orders rejecting refund were unsustainable, the appeals succeeded, and the assessee was held entitled to refund with consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied on mere procedural defects or minor documentary discrepancies when the imported goods and the sold goods are the same and the substantive conditions for refund are satisfied.

---