9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. Decisions of the Tribunal as well as of the Hon’ble Apex Court particularly in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, [2007 -TMI - 1061 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], and AUDIOPLUS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), RAIGAD [2010 (11) TMI 361 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ] - It was held that beneficial circular to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular applicable prospectively - Thus, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant holding time bar, is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/54/2011-SM(BR) - 1343/2012-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 11-9-2012 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) Shri A. Jaju, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. R. Jagdev, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 21-6-2008, 15-7-2008 and the refund claims were filed on 1-1-2010. Therefore, in view of the said Circular refund claim is clearly time barred. The grounds taken by the appellant in appeal are not found sustainable. I have seen the Circular No. 6/2008 that dated 28-4-2008 issued by the CBEC. It stands explained and observed in para (4) of the said Circular as under - C. 4. Time-Limit : 4.1 In the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, dated 14-9-2007, no specific time - limit has been prescribed for filing a refund application. Under the circumstances, a doubt has been expressed that whether the normal time-limit of six months prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act, would apply. In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided under Notification No. 93/2008 dated 1-8-2008. 3. On the other hand, it is the contention of the appellant that the period of limitation was not applicable in terms of the earlier Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007, as clarified by the Board. Inasmuch as the duty paid was before the Notification No. 93/2008 laying down the period of limitation, the refund claims filed beyond the period of one year have to be allowed. 4. I find that the identical issued was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Audioplus v. Commissioner of Customs, reported as 2011 (264) E.L.T. 516 (Tribunal-Mumbai). It stands observed by the Tribunal as under - I have perused the records and examined the submissions made by both the sides. It is no d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
