9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of one year was to be calculated based upon the date of payment of the S.A.D. and not based upon the date of further sale or payment of VAT, was held to be erroneous. At least as far as the undisputed amounts with respect to the 5 bills of entry are concerned, requires to be allowed. So far as the 6th bill of entry is concerned, appellant asserts that the C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 16/2008 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half of respondent. 3. The following question of law arises for consideration : - Did the Tribunal fall into error in rejecting the appellant s claim for refund of ₹ 5,76,180/- on the ground that in terms of Notification No. 102/2007, the application is time barred? 4. The appellant had imported consignments of aluminium and scrap tablets on various dates through six bills of entr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im refund of these amounts. The appellant s appeal was rejected by the Tribunal which reasons that the prevailing position as to the limitation was in no manner altered by issuance of Notification No. 102/2007 which did not have retrospective effect. 5. This Court has recently in its judgment Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (CUSAA 3/2014, decided on 16-4-2014 [201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r as the undisputed amounts with respect to the 5 bills of entry are concerned, requires to be allowed. So far as the 6th bill of entry is concerned, appellant asserts that the C.B.E. C. Circular No. 16/2008 paragraph (viii) covers the aspect and that payments made by clearing or forwarding agents to satisfy VAT demands would also fall in the legitimate claim that can be pressed by importers. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
