9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. - C/13673-13674/2013, C/13917/2013, C/10507/2014 & C/10538/2016 - A/11334-11338/2017 - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri P. P. Jadeja, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri J. Nagori, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra These five appeals arising out of a common order and involving common issues, and therefore, taken up together for disposal. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants had filed refund claims for ₹ 20,16,004.40/- (in appeal No.C/13673/2013) in terms of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 claiming refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid at the time of import. The Adjudicating Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi - 2016 (343) ELT 72 (Del.). 4. Per contra, the Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the period of limitation is prescribed under Clause (c) of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007, inserted thereunder through amending Notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008, clearly prescribes that the importers filing claim of refund of the Additional Duty, should be before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said duty. It is his contention that the period involved in appeals are after 01.08.2008 and the refund claims being filed after one year, therefore, the refunds are barred by limitation. Distinguishing the judgement of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd s case, he has s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Undisputedly, the refund claims in all these appeals pertain to the period of after 01.08.2008. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the Ld. AR for the Revenue the principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd s case cannot be made applicable to the present case. On the other hand, the judgement of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. UOI - 2016 (342) ELT 48 (Guj.) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, whereunder it is held that the limitation prescribed for refund cannot be extended. Their Lordships observed as:- 13. We are unable to uphold the contention that such period of limitation was only procedural requirement and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
