SAD refund under customs notification turns on proof of sale and prescribed documents; extraneous objections cannot defeat entitlement.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs depends on proof of SAD payment, subsequent sale of the same goods, and compliance with the prescribed documents; objections based on the importer's trade status, VAT description, or alleged end-use were extraneous, so the refund denial on that ground was unsustainable. For two bills of entry, the limitation objection turned on challans and other evidence that had not been examined, so the rejection was set aside for fresh consideration on remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of special additional duty under the relevant customs notification could be denied on the ground that the imported betel nuts and the goods subsequently sold as supari were not the same, and on objections relating to the importer's status or end-use of the goods. (ii) Whether the rejection of refund claims for two bills of entry on limitation required interference or fresh examination of the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether refund of special additional duty under the relevant customs notification could be denied on the ground that the imported betel nuts and the goods subsequently sold as supari were not the same, and on objections relating to the importer's status or end-use of the goods.

Analysis: The refund scheme under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs operates on proof of payment of SAD at import stage and subsequent sale of the same goods on payment of VAT/CST. The goods imported as industrial grade betel nuts were found, on the basis of tariff classification, HSN notes and other material, to be the same as areca nut or supari. The objections based on the importer being a kirana dealer, the description used in the VAT registration, and the alleged industrial nature of the goods were treated as extraneous, since the decisive question was whether the imported goods were subsequently sold and whether the prescribed documentary requirements were met.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on these grounds was unsustainable, and the refund entitlement was accepted for the claims not hit by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the rejection of refund claims for two bills of entry on limitation required interference or fresh examination of the evidence.

Analysis: The refund application for each of the two bills of entry was filed beyond one year from the date of payment of SAD. However, the appellants produced challans and other evidence asserting timely payment details, and that evidence had not been examined by the lower appellate authority. Since the limitation issue turned on the unexamined material, the proper course was to remit those claims for reconsideration.

Conclusion: The limitation-based rejection was not finally sustained on merits and those refund claims were remanded for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's challenge to the grant of refund on the substantive issue failed, while the assessees' challenge to the limitation-based rejection succeeded to the extent of remand for verification of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the SAD refund mechanism, refund cannot be denied on extraneous considerations if the importer proves payment of SAD, subsequent sale of the same goods, and compliance with the prescribed documentary conditions; limitation objections requiring factual verification may warrant remand where relevant evidence has not been examined.

---