https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361702 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007 could not be denied merely because the sale invoices did not contain an endorsement that no Cenvat credit would be admissible to the buyer. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that omission of the endorsement was only a procedural lapse, since a commercial invoice was in any event not eligible for credit under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On that basis, the missing endorsement was not treated as a valid ground to refuse the refund, and the denial was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:53:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361702 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007 could not be denied merely because the sale invoices did not contain an endorsement that no Cenvat credit would be admissible to the buyer. The Tribunal applied the Larger Bench view that omission of the endorsement was only a procedural lapse, since a commercial invoice was in any event not eligible for credit under Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On that basis, the missing endorsement was not treated as a valid ground to refuse the refund, and the denial was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361702