2013 (2) TMI 147

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... laim of additional duty of customs was denied by both the lower authorities. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported pharmaceutical products and paid duty and additional duty of customs (CVD). The said goods were cleared by the appellants under invoices of credit paying VAT. Therefore, they filed the refund claim of CVD paid by them under Notification No. 102/07-Customs dated 14 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S25A/SAD/446D/08 dt.23.9.08 568325 Dt.12.3.08 98972199 Dt.12.3.08 2,01,553/- 400001 Dt.15.4.08 400007 & 400008 Dt.21.3.08 1,98,504 77,698/- 61,680/- 20.05.08 21.04.08 21.04.08 For S.No. 1, the refund claim was rejected as same is barred by limitation as per the Notification No. 93/08-Customs dated 01.08.08, as the same is to be filed within the period of one year. Rest of the refund c .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... import prior to 01.08.08, there is no bar of time limit as applicable. Therefore, I hold that for S.No. 1 the appellants are entitled for refund claim on limitations. As the said refund claim was not considered for unjust enrichment which is to be examined by the adjudicating authority. For rest of the refund claims, as it is the finding of the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X