Substantial compliance for SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus upheld despite minor invoice discrepancies.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied merely for invoice-format differences or typographical variations when the substantive conditions are met. The notification's endorsement requirement in paragraph 2(b) is directed to preventing double benefit, and where SAD was paid at import, the goods were later sold on payment of VAT or sales tax, and Chartered Accountant certificates linked the imports to sales and showed no passing on of duty incidence, minor discrepancies in copies of invoices do not defeat the claim. In the absence of any finding that buyers actually took SAD credit, the appellant was held to have substantially complied with the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus could be denied on the ground of discrepancies in invoice format and alleged non-compliance with the endorsement requirement in paragraph 2(b).

Analysis: The refund claim arose under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which requires an endorsement in the sales invoice that no credit of the additional duty of customs levied under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act shall be admissible. The foundational facts were not in dispute: SAD was paid at import, the goods were subsequently sold on payment of VAT or sales tax, and Chartered Accountant certificates established correlation between imports and sales and non-passing of duty incidence. The controversy related only to variations in invoice layout, typographical presentation, and differences between copies retained by the importer and those obtained from buyers. Such discrepancies, by themselves, do not establish absence of the statutory declaration, particularly when there is no finding that buyers actually availed SAD credit or that the duty incidence was passed on. The condition in the notification is intended to prevent double benefit, and the records showed substantive compliance with that object.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on hyper-technical discrepancies in invoice format, and the appellant was held to have substantially complied with paragraph 2(b) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

---