9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the reason that the goods were seized by the Customs Department, which were ultimately released pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 28.08.2012 - the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for “exclusion of time” for computation of period of limitation, applies - Decided in favor of the assessee. - C/52804/2015-C[SM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same were seized by the Anti Smuggling Staff of Customs Department on 01.09.2011. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Hon ble Punjab Haryana Court and got relief vide order dated 28.08.2012. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Hon ble High Court, the Customs Department released the seized goods on 30.12.2012. Upon release of the seized goods, the appellant sold the same in the dome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njab Haryana High Court vide order dated 28.08.2012. Since the goods were released on 30.12.2012 and the same were sold by the appellant within the reasonable time and filed the refund application in terms of Notification No. 102/07 dated 14.09.2007, I am of the opinion that the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. In this context, I rely on the provisions of Section 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be construed that the refund application was filed within the stipulated time frame of one year. 6. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the refund application filed by the appellant is not barred by limitation of time. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential relief, as per law. (Dictated and pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
