Refund of Special Additional Duty cannot be denied for technical description differences when goods are otherwise identifiable and conditions are met.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under an exemption notification could not be denied merely because import documents and sale invoices used different grade codes, where the goods were otherwise substantively identifiable as the same. The Court noted that the prescribed documents and conditions were substantially complied with, the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported identity of the goods, and there was no material of fraud or misrepresentation. It approved the finding that the imported goods and sold goods were co-relatable and held that a purely technical variation in description did not justify rejection of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to refund of Special Additional Duty under the exemption notification notwithstanding discrepancy in the description or grade codes used in the import documents and sale invoices.

Analysis: Refund under the notification depended on production of the prescribed documents and compliance with the stipulated conditions. The record showed that the adjudicating authority had accepted the refund claim substantially and rejected only a part of it on the ground that the sale invoices did not carry the same grade codes as the import documents. The Court held that the omission of grade particulars did not, by itself, establish that the imported and sold goods were different, especially when the description of the goods remained the same in substance, the Chartered Accountant's certificate supported identity of the goods, and there was no material suggesting fraud or misrepresentation. The Court also approved the first appellate authority's finding that the goods imported and the goods sold were co-relatable and that the rejection on this ground was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The discrepancy was not a valid ground to deny refund, and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under an exemption notification cannot be denied for a merely technical variation in description where the goods are otherwise identifiable as the same, the substantive conditions are satisfied, and no fraud or misrepresentation is shown.

---