SAD refund under exemption notification cannot be denied by importing section 27 refund restrictions or unjust enrichment requirements.

A refund of special additional duty claimed under a specific exemption notification had to be tested only against the notification's own conditions, not the general refund restrictions in section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The authority could not superimpose an unjust enrichment objection or insist on section 27 requirements where the notification governed entitlement and the prescribed supporting documents, including chartered accountant certification, were furnished. The orders rejecting refund were set aside and the claims were remanded for fresh adjudication under the SAD refund notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of special additional duty could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment and insistence on section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, when the claim was made under the exemption notification governing SAD refunds and the prescribed supporting documentation was furnished.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under the notification issued under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 for special additional duty paid on imports, not as a general refund claim under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notification itself governed entitlement and its conditions, and the authority could not import additional requirements from section 27 unless the notification so provided. The levy of SAD under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was designed for a limited purpose and the refund mechanism under the notification was backed by administrative instructions requiring chartered accountant certification. In the absence of a specific statutory or notification-based mandate to apply the wider refund restrictions, denial solely on an enlarged reading of unjust enrichment was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The refund claim could not be rejected merely by invoking section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 or by insisting on additional conditions not found in the notification. The matter had to be reconsidered on the basis of the notification's own requirements.

Final Conclusion: The orders rejecting refund were set aside and the claims were sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with the exemption notification governing SAD refunds.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund is claimed under a specific exemption notification, the authority must confine itself to the conditions prescribed in that notification and cannot superimpose the general refund restrictions of section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless the notification expressly adopts them.

---