https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359143 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be denied for mere procedural defects or minor documentary variations when the substantive refund conditions were satisfied. The absence of the endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible was treated as procedural only, so it did not defeat the claim. A minor mismatch between the Bill of Entry descriptions and sales invoice descriptions also could not bar refund where the imported and sold goods were the same. Likewise, the claim could not be rejected on the basis of alleged inadequacy in proof of the consignment sale agreement or sales tax liability when the agreement was produced and tax was shown to have been discharged. en-us Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 06:00:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359143 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be denied for mere procedural defects or minor documentary variations when the substantive refund conditions were satisfied. The absence of the endorsement that Cenvat credit was not admissible was treated as procedural only, so it did not defeat the claim. A minor mismatch between the Bill of Entry descriptions and sales invoice descriptions also could not bar refund where the imported and sold goods were the same. Likewise, the claim could not be rejected on the basis of alleged inadequacy in proof of the consignment sale agreement or sales tax liability when the agreement was produced and tax was shown to have been discharged. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 26 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359143