https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279403 Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be refused merely because a photocopy of the TR-6 challan did not clearly show the date of payment. Bank challans and an ICEGATE extract certified by a Chartered Accountant independently corroborated payment of customs duty against the relevant Bill of Entry, and no other non-compliance with the notification conditions was shown. The absence of a clear date in one supporting document was treated as a technical defect only, insufficient to defeat an otherwise substantiated refund claim. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 07:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279403 Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. could not be refused merely because a photocopy of the TR-6 challan did not clearly show the date of payment. Bank challans and an ICEGATE extract certified by a Chartered Accountant independently corroborated payment of customs duty against the relevant Bill of Entry, and no other non-compliance with the notification conditions was shown. The absence of a clear date in one supporting document was treated as a technical defect only, insufficient to defeat an otherwise substantiated refund claim. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279403