SAD refund endorsement lapse treated as procedural, so missing invoice declaration could not defeat refund entitlement.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007 could not be denied merely because the sale invoices did not contain an endorsement that no Cenvat credit would be admissible to the buyer. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that omission of the endorsement was only a procedural lapse, since a commercial invoice was in any event not eligible for credit under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On that basis, the missing endorsement was not treated as a valid ground to refuse the refund, and the denial was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of special additional duty was deniable merely because the sale invoices did not carry the endorsement that no Cenvat credit would be admissible to the buyer.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under Notification No. 102/2007 and was rejected for want of the requisite endorsement on the invoices. The Tribunal relied on the Larger Bench ruling that non-declaration on the commercial invoice was only a procedural lapse, since such an invoice was in any event ineligible for credit under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The absence of the endorsement was therefore not treated as a valid ground to deny the refund or credit benefit.

Conclusion: The objection based on the missing endorsement was rejected, and the refund denial was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---