https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185635 A circular could not deny Special Additional Duty refund on the ground that two claims were filed in one calendar month where Notification No. 102/2007-Customs did not impose that limitation. The refund condition could not be expanded by administrative instruction beyond the notification itself, so rejection on that basis was unsustainable. However, because the record showed a factual dispute on whether the relevant invoices and proof of VAT or CST payment were available, the claim required verification by the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after checking payment of VAT or CST. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185635 A circular could not deny Special Additional Duty refund on the ground that two claims were filed in one calendar month where Notification No. 102/2007-Customs did not impose that limitation. The refund condition could not be expanded by administrative instruction beyond the notification itself, so rejection on that basis was unsustainable. However, because the record showed a factual dispute on whether the relevant invoices and proof of VAT or CST payment were available, the claim required verification by the adjudicating authority. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after checking payment of VAT or CST. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 25 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185635