Procedural endorsement defect cannot defeat customs refund where substantive exemption conditions are otherwise satisfied.

Refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be denied solely for absence of the specific non-credit endorsement on commercial invoices where the claim was otherwise supported by the required documents. The requirement in paragraph 2(b) was treated as procedural, because the invoice itself did not disclose the duty element and the substantive object of preventing pass-through credit was substantially achieved. The refund was therefore admissible when the other exemption conditions were met.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could be denied merely because the commercial invoices did not contain the specific endorsement that credit of additional duty of customs was not admissible.

Analysis: The refund claim was otherwise supported by the required documents, and the sole objection was non-compliance with paragraph 2(b) of the notification. The larger Bench ruling relied on the distinction between substantive and procedural conditions and held that where the invoice itself did not specify the duty element, the object of the endorsement requirement was substantially achieved. The requirement was treated as procedural, and the absence of the specific endorsement on the commercial invoice did not defeat the exemption when the other conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: The non-endorsement on the invoices did not justify rejection of the refund claim. The appellant was entitled to refund under the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural condition in an exemption notification, meant only to ensure that credit is not passed on, is satisfied where the invoice does not disclose the duty element and the other substantive conditions for exemption are met.

---