https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445597 The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. despite not having the specific endorsement on the invoices as required by para 2(b) of the notification. The Tribunal determined that the endorsement was a procedural requirement and that the substantive objective of the exemption could be achieved without it, provided the duty element was not specified on the invoices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders rejecting the refund claim, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief. en-us Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2023 10:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445597 The Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. despite not having the specific endorsement on the invoices as required by para 2(b) of the notification. The Tribunal determined that the endorsement was a procedural requirement and that the substantive objective of the exemption could be achieved without it, provided the duty element was not specified on the invoices. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders rejecting the refund claim, allowing the appeals and granting consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445597