SAD refund claims cannot be rejected for minor description mismatches when prescribed documents and reconciliation support compliance.

Minor clerical or descriptive differences between bills of entry and sales invoices could not defeat a Special Additional Duty refund claim when the claimant had otherwise complied with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and the governing circular by producing the prescribed supporting documents, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate and reconciliation statement. Rejection of the refund required reliable incriminating material and clear reasons showing that the discrepancy went to the root of the claim; in the absence of such material, the refusal was unsustainable and the refund remained admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs on the ground of mismatch in description of goods between the bills of entry and sales invoices, despite production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate and reconciliation statement, was sustainable.

Analysis: The refund claim was founded on documentary compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and the Board's circular governing SAD refund. The discrepancy noticed was only a minor variation in description and dates, which did not go to the root of the claim. Where the claimant produced the prescribed supporting documents, including the Chartered Accountant's certificate and reconciliation statement, the rejection of the certificate had to rest on reliable incriminating material and clear reasons. In the absence of such material, minor clerical or descriptive differences could not defeat a legitimate refund claim.

Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable and the refund was held admissible in favour of the assessee.

---