2013 (5) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ling of the SAD refund claim. On the other hand, appellant's contention is that their assessment was provisional and the date of finalization of assessment was taken as the relevant date for computing the period of limitation of one year. The refund claim was filed within a period of one year from the date of finalisation of the assessment. 2. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that earlier they had filed the SAD refund with a period of one year from the date of payment of duty which were returned to them by observing that the same cannot be processed as the bill of entry in question is provisionally assessed. They were directed to file the refund claim subsequently after the finalization of bill of entry. However, he fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the cases where assessments are provisional. It has been reported that in some Custom Houses, date of payment of duty is being considered as date for determining the prescribed period of one year in terms of the Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 whereas in other Customs Houses, the relevant date is the date of finalization of provisional assessment and accordingly the importers in those Customs Houses are filing refund claim within one year of finalization of assessment. It was requested that a suitable clarification be issued by the Board in order to ensure uniformity in procedure. 3. The matter has been examined in the Board. As per the Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008, the limitation of time under Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... concluded that the Revenue itself was under the impression that the refund being in terms of Section 27, period of limitation would start running from the date of finalisation. As such without going into the validity and correctness of the Circular issued by the Board, i.e., without deciding the legal issue as to whether it is provision of Section 27 which will apply or not, I hold that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, refund claim cannot be rejected on the point of time bar. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for processing the refund claim after verification of the documents etc. Appeal is allowed in above terms. (Pronounced in the open Court)
Case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X