Refund of Special Additional Duty depends on invoice endorsements, supporting records, and proof against unjust enrichment.

Refund of Special Additional Duty was discussed as dependent on compliance with Notification No. 102/2007, proper endorsement on invoices, and proof that the duty burden was not passed on. The note states that where import, sale, VAT, ledger and Chartered Accountant records supported non-availment of credit and non-passing of duty, the bar of unjust enrichment would not apply and refund could be sustained. It also notes that denial of a requested personal hearing was treated as a serious procedural defect capable of unsettling the appellate order. On those facts, the refund claim was allowed and the rejection order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rejection of refund of Special Additional Duty on the four bills of entry could be sustained when no personal hearing was afforded to the appellant; (ii) Whether the appellant had satisfied the conditions for refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 and rebutted the bar of unjust enrichment.

Issue (i): Whether the rejection of refund of Special Additional Duty on the four bills of entry could be sustained when no personal hearing was afforded to the appellant.

Analysis: A request for personal hearing had been made before the appellate authority. The absence of such hearing was treated as a serious procedural defect affecting the revenue's case. This procedural lapse was considered sufficient by itself to unsettle the impugned order.

Conclusion: The denial of personal hearing was held to be fatal, against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had satisfied the conditions for refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 and rebutted the bar of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The record showed that the duty on the four bills of entry had been initially debited in DEPB script and the balance paid on the next day. The sales invoices carried the required endorsement that credit of the additional duty under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 had not been availed or would not be admissible. VAT had been paid on the local sales, and the Chartered Accountant's certificate together with the ledger accounts and invoices supported the claim that the duty burden had not been passed on. In these circumstances, the requirement of unjust enrichment was found not to arise.

Conclusion: The refund conditions were held to be satisfied and the objection based on unjust enrichment failed, in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate order rejecting refund was unsustainable and was set aside, resulting in allowance of the refund claim with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Refund of Special Additional Duty cannot be denied where the importer produces the prescribed import, sale, and VAT documents, the invoices carry the statutory non-availment endorsement, and there is no material to disbelieve the supporting certificate or to show that the duty burden was passed on.

---