https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273355 Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as admissible where the invoices carried an endorsement stating that no SAD credit would be available to the buyer. The substantive requirement in paragraph 2(b) was that the buyer should not receive such credit, and the text notes that this object was achieved despite the endorsement not following the exact wording prescribed in the notification. The deviation in language was treated as procedural, and prior Tribunal decisions were relied on to support substantial compliance. The refund was therefore not to be denied merely for non-exact phrasing in the invoice endorsement. en-us Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:30:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273355 Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. was treated as admissible where the invoices carried an endorsement stating that no SAD credit would be available to the buyer. The substantive requirement in paragraph 2(b) was that the buyer should not receive such credit, and the text notes that this object was achieved despite the endorsement not following the exact wording prescribed in the notification. The deviation in language was treated as procedural, and prior Tribunal decisions were relied on to support substantial compliance. The refund was therefore not to be denied merely for non-exact phrasing in the invoice endorsement. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 04 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273355