https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328514 Refund under the customs refund notification could not be denied merely because the invoice lacked a separate endorsement on non-availment of Cenvat credit, since the absence of any duty element in the invoice was treated as sufficient compliance and the claim was allowed on that point. However, discrepancies between the bill of entry and the sales invoice had to be reconciled to verify whether the imported goods were actually sold for refund purposes, so that issue was remanded for factual examination. The question of unjust enrichment, including the correctness of the chartered accountant's certificate and whether duty incidence had been passed on, was also remanded for fresh consideration after opportunity of hearing. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Nov 2016 15:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328514 Refund under the customs refund notification could not be denied merely because the invoice lacked a separate endorsement on non-availment of Cenvat credit, since the absence of any duty element in the invoice was treated as sufficient compliance and the claim was allowed on that point. However, discrepancies between the bill of entry and the sales invoice had to be reconciled to verify whether the imported goods were actually sold for refund purposes, so that issue was remanded for factual examination. The question of unjust enrichment, including the correctness of the chartered accountant's certificate and whether duty incidence had been passed on, was also remanded for fresh consideration after opportunity of hearing. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328514