https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173686 Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was considered in the context of invoices that did not show customs duty separately and an importer who was not a registered dealer for passing credit. The original authority had rejected the refund claim for lack of the required invoice endorsement, while the appellate authority allowed it. On a stay application, the Tribunal noted these objections but also observed that the transaction arose at an early stage of implementation of the exemption and before the Board's clarification. No sufficient ground was shown to suspend the appellate order, and the stay request was rejected. en-us Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Mar 2017 10:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173686 Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was considered in the context of invoices that did not show customs duty separately and an importer who was not a registered dealer for passing credit. The original authority had rejected the refund claim for lack of the required invoice endorsement, while the appellate authority allowed it. On a stay application, the Tribunal noted these objections but also observed that the transaction arose at an early stage of implementation of the exemption and before the Board's clarification. No sufficient ground was shown to suspend the appellate order, and the stay request was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173686