Tribunal grants refund despite procedural errors, emphasizing substantive compliance.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the initial rejection of the appellant's refund application for the Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). It emphasized that procedural lapses, such as non-compliance with invoice endorsement requirements and technical accounting errors, should not hinder legitimate refund claims if the substantive conditions are met. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the purpose of the declaration was achieved despite the procedural shortcomings, and granted the refund with consequential relief, rejecting the denial based on procedural grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Notification No.102/2007-Cus regarding invoice endorsement.
2. Non-accounting of SAD amount in the financial year 2008-09.
3. Unjust enrichment and procedural compliance for refund claims.

Summary:

Issue 1: Non-compliance with Notification No.102/2007-Cus regarding invoice endorsement
The appellant's refund application for the Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) was initially rejected because the invoices did not contain the required endorsement stating "No credit of the additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act.1975 shall be admissible." The Tribunal referenced several cases, including M/s Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd., which established that the absence of such an endorsement is a procedural lapse and does not undermine the substantive right to refund. The Tribunal emphasized that since the appellant is not a registered dealer and the invoices did not indicate the SAD paid, the purpose of the declaration was achieved, and the refund should not be denied on this ground.

Issue 2: Non-accounting of SAD amount in the financial year 2008-09
The appellant's refund claim was also rejected because the SAD amount was not shown as receivable in their books for the year 2008-09 but was corrected in the subsequent year. The Tribunal, referencing the case of M/s Systronics (India) Ltd., held that the requirement to show the refund claim as receivable in the books of account is not stipulated in Notification No. 102/2007 or subsequent Circular No. 18/2010. The Tribunal ruled that the Chartered Accountant certificate is sufficient for the refund claim, and technical lapses in accounting should not bar the substantive benefit of the refund.

Issue 3: Unjust enrichment and procedural compliance for refund claims
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had complied with the necessary conditions by submitting a Chartered Accountant certificate. It was also noted that the price of the goods sold to Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. was agreed upon in 2008, and no other taxes were to be charged or reimbursed. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not passed on the burden of SAD to the buyer, thus negating unjust enrichment. The Tribunal cited multiple precedents to support that refunds should not be denied due to procedural or technical infractions when the substantive conditions are met.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the refund of SAD should not be denied on procedural grounds when the substantive requirements are fulfilled.

---