Special Additional Duty refund cannot be denied for minor invoice-description mismatch when supporting documents and tax payment proof are produced.

Refund of Special Additional Duty cannot be refused merely because the description of imported goods differs from the description in sale invoices, where the claimant produces the prescribed bills of entry, sales invoices, VAT/CST payment records and a Chartered Accountant's reconciliation certificate. A minor and curable discrepancy in description does not defeat the claim when the substantive conditions for refund are otherwise shown to be satisfied and there is no reliable material to discredit the supporting certificate or to show that VAT/CST was not paid on the subsequent sale. Technical objections alone are insufficient to reject such a refund claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied solely on the ground of discrepancy in description between the goods imported and the goods sold in the sale invoices, despite production of the prescribed supporting documents and reconciliation statement.

Analysis: The claim was supported by the bills of entry, sales invoices, VAT/CST payment documents, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate with reconciliation statement as contemplated by the departmental circular. The discrepancy was only in the description of the goods and was treated as minor and curable. The record disclosed no reliable incriminating material to disbelieve the certificate, and there was no finding that VAT/CST had not been paid on the subsequent sale. The settled approach is that such refund claims cannot be rejected on half-baked or technical grounds when the substantive conditions of the notification are otherwise shown to be satisfied.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the stated ground, and the rejection was unsustainable.

---