9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lad, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of refund claims to the tune of ₹ 9,24,299/- 2. The appellants imported sewing machine during the period from November 2007 to July 2008. They filed Bills of Entry for clearance of the imported goods and the said Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed and while finalisation of Bills of Entry were pending, they filed the refund claims in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dt. 14/07/2007. The said refund claims were returned by the Department stating the reason that the assessments have not been finalised. Later vide letter dt. 05/12/2008, appellants requested the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied upon the judgment in the case of Audioplus Vs. CC, Raigad [2011(264) ELT 516 (Tri. Mum.)] and Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi [2014(304) ELT 660 (Del.)]. 4. The learned AR Shri Guna Ranjan appearing for the Department reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the Notification No. 93/2008 prescribes one year as the time limit for filing the refund claim and therefore the authorities below, have rightly rejected the refund claim. 5. I have heard the submissions made by both, sides. Evidently, the duty (SAD) has been paid by the appellant in respect of the 8 refund claims prior to 01/08/2008. The relevant para of the Notification No.93/2008 which prescribes the time limit is reproduced as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) S.T.R. 430 (S.C.) it was held that beneficial circular to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular applicable prospectively. In this case, it is no doubt that the appellants paid the duty when the Notification 93/2008 dated 1-8-2008 was not in operation. Therefore, the payment of duty in this case is not bound by Notification 93/2008 as the Notification came into force only on 1-8-2008. Any payment of duty made after 1-8-2008, refund of the same shall be entitled, if the same is filed within one year but the duty is payable pursuant to Notification 102/2007 dated 14th September 07 prior to 1-8-2008, the limitation period is not applicable in the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
