https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429407 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs could not be remanded merely because two sample sales invoices were said to lack the buyer-non-credit endorsement. The original authority had already found that the invoices carried the required endorsement and sanctioned the refund. Since it was not shown that the sampled invoices were the original invoices issued to the buyer, and there was no evidence that the buyer had actually taken CENVAT credit on their basis, the department's objection did not justify reprocessing. In light of the Larger Bench view that absence of endorsement on sales invoices, by itself, is not a ground to deny refund, the remand was held unsustainable and the refund sanction was restored. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Oct 2022 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429407 Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs could not be remanded merely because two sample sales invoices were said to lack the buyer-non-credit endorsement. The original authority had already found that the invoices carried the required endorsement and sanctioned the refund. Since it was not shown that the sampled invoices were the original invoices issued to the buyer, and there was no evidence that the buyer had actually taken CENVAT credit on their basis, the department's objection did not justify reprocessing. In light of the Larger Bench view that absence of endorsement on sales invoices, by itself, is not a ground to deny refund, the remand was held unsustainable and the refund sanction was restored. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429407