Refund under SAD notification upheld where invoices lacked duty particulars and unjust enrichment was not proved.

For refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., omission in a commercial invoice to state that Cenvat credit was not admissible did not by itself defeat the claim where the invoice otherwise did not disclose duty particulars and the notification's other conditions were met; the refund was therefore allowed. On unjust enrichment, the claimant's books showed the refund as receivable, VAT or sales tax was paid on the onward sale, and the Revenue produced no contrary material to show that the duty burden had been passed on, so the refund was not barred on that ground. The appellate challenge failed and the refund relief was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether omission in the sales invoices to state that credit of the additional duty of customs was not admissible disentitled the respondent from refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.; (ii) Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether omission in the sales invoices to state that credit of the additional duty of customs was not admissible disentitled the respondent from refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

Analysis: The condition in the notification was held to be satisfied where the importer issued commercial invoices without separately indicating duty details, because non-specification of the duty element itself reflects that no Cenvat credit is available on such invoice. The Tribunal relied on the settled view that the endorsement is not mandatory if the invoice does not disclose duty particulars and the other conditions of the notification are met.

Conclusion: The omission did not disentitle the respondent from refund, and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim was hit by unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The Chartered Accountant's certificate showed the refund amount as receivable in the books of account, and the respondent had also discharged VAT or sales tax on the subsequent sale of the imported goods. No contrary material was produced by the Revenue to show that the duty incidence had been passed on to buyers.

Conclusion: The refund was not barred by unjust enrichment, and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate challenge failed on both the notification compliance issue and the unjust enrichment objection, and the refund relief granted below was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., non-mention of the non-credit endorsement in a commercial invoice does not by itself defeat the claim where the invoice otherwise does not specify duty particulars and the claimant establishes that the duty incidence was not passed on.

---