Procedural invoice endorsement cannot by itself defeat refund of special additional duty when substantive conditions are met.

The endorsement requirement on sale invoices under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was treated as procedural, not substantive; the absence of that endorsement alone could not defeat refund where the other refund conditions were satisfied. Although the record did not establish that the invoices carried the requisite endorsement, the binding larger bench view was applied that a trader-importer who paid special additional duty and discharged sales tax or VAT on onward sale remains entitled to refund if the notification's remaining conditions are met. On that basis, rejection of the refund claim was held unsustainable and the assessee succeeded with consequential relief according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sales invoices submitted by the appellant contained the endorsement required under paragraph 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007; and (ii) whether refund of additional duty of customs could be denied solely for absence of that endorsement where the other conditions for refund were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the sales invoices submitted by the appellant contained the endorsement required under paragraph 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007.

Analysis: The record did not contain the sales invoices or departmental acknowledgement supporting the appellant's assertion that the invoices had been stamped or imprinted with the requisite endorsement. The finding of the lower authorities that the invoices verified at the buyer's end did not carry the mandatory endorsement was therefore accepted.

Conclusion: The endorsement on the invoices was not established on the material on record.

Issue (ii): Whether refund of additional duty of customs could be denied solely for absence of that endorsement where the other conditions for refund were satisfied.

Analysis: The larger bench ruling on Notification No. 102/2007-Customs held that the endorsement requirement in paragraph 2(b) is procedural in nature and that a trader-importer who paid the special additional duty, discharged sales tax or VAT on subsequent sale, and issued commercial invoices without showing duty details would still be entitled to refund, provided the remaining conditions were met. Applying that binding view, the absence of the specific endorsement by itself could not defeat the refund claim when the object of the notification was otherwise achieved and the other statutory conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: Refund could not be denied merely on the ground of absence of the endorsement, and the appellant was entitled to the refund claim subject to the other conditions of the notification.

Final Conclusion: The rejection of the refund claim was unsustainable, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for refund under the notification are satisfied, the endorsement requirement on the sale invoice is a procedural condition and its absence alone does not defeat entitlement to refund of special additional duty.

---