SAD refund relief: procedural defects and missing originals did not defeat entitlement where substantive compliance was proved.

SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be denied on jurisdictional objection or insistence on original documents where the department had earlier received the records, their non-traceability was explained, and reconstruction through secondary evidence was accepted. The Tribunal treated missing invoice endorsements and similar format defects as procedural, not fatal, because payment of SAD, subsequent sale on VAT/CST, and certification that credit was not availed or passed on were established. Refund was upheld to the extent supported by the record, and statutory interest applied on the admissible delayed refund.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the jurisdictional objection and insistence on original documents could sustain rejection of the SAD refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. despite prior remand and reconstruction of records; (ii) Whether the appellant established compliance with the substantive conditions for SAD refund and was entitled to refund with interest.

Issue (i): Whether the jurisdictional objection and insistence on original documents could sustain rejection of the SAD refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. despite prior remand and reconstruction of records.

Analysis: The jurisdictional issue had already been settled in the appellant's own case, and the authority below was bound to decide the refund claims on merits. The original documents had earlier been filed and acknowledged by the department, and their later non-traceability within the department justified reconstruction through secondary evidence. In these circumstances, rejection solely on the ground of jurisdictional objection or absence of originals was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection and denial based on non-production of originals were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant established compliance with the substantive conditions for SAD refund and was entitled to refund with interest.

Analysis: The record showed payment of SAD on import, subsequent sale on payment of VAT/CST, and certification that no SAD credit had been availed or passed on. The absence of endorsement on invoices and similar document-format objections were treated as procedural, not fatal, where substantive entitlement was established. The Tribunal also accepted the evidentiary value of the SEZ verification report and held that the refund was admissible only to the extent actually supported by the records. Interest followed under the statutory provision governing delayed refund.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to refund of Rs. 1,85,93,345/- with applicable interest.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the refund claim was upheld on the basis of substantial compliance, with statutory interest granted on the admissible amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A SAD refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied for procedural lapses where payment of SAD, subsequent VAT/CST sale, and non-passing of credit are established, and delayed admissible refund carries statutory interest.

---