2016 (9) TMI 314

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... time limit prescribed under the law. The decision in the case Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is held appropriate, where, it was decided that it is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a court or Tribunal rendered in the case of another person. Once the assessment of levy has become final the assessee cannot seek to reopen it nor can he claim refund without reopening such assessment, only on the basis of decision in another person's case - Section 72 of the Contract Act or for that matter Section 17 (1) (c) of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to such a claim for refund - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Shri Justice Dr. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g that the clearance from DTA units to SEZ do not attract export duty as these clearances are not export. 3. The learned Consultant for the appellant submitted that no export duty was payable on the goods procured by them in view of the decision of Hon'bde Gujarat High Court in Essar Steel Limited vs. Union of India reported in 2010 (249) E.L.T. 3 (Guj.). The appellants filed protest which was later withdrawn, however, learned Consultant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Oswal Oil and Soap Industries and another vs. Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi and others reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 876 (P&H) to state that even in case the protest is withdrawn the time limit will not a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is a well settled position of law when a claim is preferred by an assessee before the Departmental Authority the same has to be processed within the scope of the legal provisions and the sanctioning authority cannot entertain any claim beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the law. We also find that the reliance placed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) as appropriate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is not open to any person to make a refund claim on the basis of a decision of a court or Tribunal rendered in the case of-another person. Once the asses .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X