Procedural invoice defects cannot defeat Special Additional Duty refund when substantive conditions are met and notice limits are respected.

Refund of Special Additional Duty was treated as unavailable only for substantive non-fulfilment, not for mere omission of the invoice declaration where the underlying purpose of preventing inadmissible buyer credit was otherwise satisfied. The text also states that a refund could not be denied on unjust enrichment or any other ground not proposed in the show cause notice, and that a Chartered Accountant's certificate was accepted in the absence of a contrary notice-based case. The stated principle is that an appellate authority cannot sustain rejection on a new ground introduced beyond the show cause notice, and procedural defects alone do not defeat substantive refund entitlement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied for non-declaration in the sale invoices that no credit of the additional duty would be admissible to the buyer. (ii) Whether refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and on a basis not proposed in the show cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied for non-declaration in the sale invoices that no credit of the additional duty would be admissible to the buyer.

Analysis: The declaration required by the notification was treated as a procedural requirement. The omission to make the declaration in the invoices did not, by itself, defeat the substantive entitlement to refund where the duty incidence and the purpose of preventing availment of inadmissible credit were otherwise addressed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and on a basis not proposed in the show cause notice.

Analysis: The Chartered Accountant's certificate produced by the assessee was held to be sufficient in the absence of a contrary proposal in the show cause notice. A ground not set out in the notice and not adopted by the original adjudicating authority could not be introduced at the appellate stage, as that would amount to travelling beyond the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was upheld and the assessee was granted the consequential relief arising from the setting aside of the denial order.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory refund cannot be denied for mere non-compliance with a procedural declaration where the substantive conditions are met, and an appellate authority cannot sustain rejection on a ground not proposed in the show cause notice.

---