https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275184 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied solely because the imported-invoice endorsement stating that no credit was availed is missing, where binding precedent has already settled the interpretation of the refund condition. Applying that line of authority, the tribunal held that absence of the specified endorsement was not a valid ground to reject the claim on the facts presented, and the refund denial was unsustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as permissible in law. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Sep 2018 08:22:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275184 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. cannot be denied solely because the imported-invoice endorsement stating that no credit was availed is missing, where binding precedent has already settled the interpretation of the refund condition. Applying that line of authority, the tribunal held that absence of the specified endorsement was not a valid ground to reject the claim on the facts presented, and the refund denial was unsustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief as permissible in law. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275184