https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240298 Refund of Special Additional Duty under the exemption notification could not be denied solely because the sale invoices lacked an endorsement that CENVAT credit was not admissible, where the goods were cars and the buyers were not registered dealers, so the possibility of credit did not arise on the stated facts. The procedural omission did not, by itself, defeat the refund claim when no substantive breach was shown. The appellate materials, including balance sheets and a chartered accountant certificate, indicated prima facie that the duty burden had not been passed on, and the claim therefore required fresh adjudication on the complete record after compliance with the deficiency memo requirements. en-us Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Oct 2015 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240298 Refund of Special Additional Duty under the exemption notification could not be denied solely because the sale invoices lacked an endorsement that CENVAT credit was not admissible, where the goods were cars and the buyers were not registered dealers, so the possibility of credit did not arise on the stated facts. The procedural omission did not, by itself, defeat the refund claim when no substantive breach was shown. The appellate materials, including balance sheets and a chartered accountant certificate, indicated prima facie that the duty burden had not been passed on, and the claim therefore required fresh adjudication on the complete record after compliance with the deficiency memo requirements. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240298