Refund under SAD notification cannot be denied for missing endorsement on sample invoices alone when no credit was shown availed.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs could not be remanded merely because two sample sales invoices were said to lack the buyer-non-credit endorsement. The original authority had already found that the invoices carried the required endorsement and sanctioned the refund. Since it was not shown that the sampled invoices were the original invoices issued to the buyer, and there was no evidence that the buyer had actually taken CENVAT credit on their basis, the department's objection did not justify reprocessing. In light of the Larger Bench view that absence of endorsement on sales invoices, by itself, is not a ground to deny refund, the remand was held unsustainable and the refund sanction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals) for verification and reprocessing of the refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was legal and proper.

Analysis: The refund related to special additional duty paid on imported goods. The original authority had found that the sales invoices carried the required endorsement that the buyer was not eligible to take CENVAT credit, and had sanctioned the refund. The remand was based on the department's objection that two sample invoices did not bear the endorsement. However, it was not established that those invoices were the original invoices issued to the buyer, nor was there evidence that the buyer had availed credit on the basis of those invoices. In view of the Larger Bench decision holding that absence of endorsement on the sales invoices is not by itself a ground to deny refund, the basis for remand was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The remand order was not legal or proper and was set aside. The refund sanctioned by the original authority was restored, in favour of the assessee.

---