9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1088X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Appeal No.50508/2016 - C/A/55729/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 2-8-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Govind Dixit, AR for the Appellants Ms Sonia Bharaj, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.1232/2015 dated 18.12.15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-assessee even in the revised list, nor is there any adjournment application available on record. 3. Heard Shri Govind Dixit, learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. From the record, it appears that in the instant case, issue involved pertains to refund which was denied by the adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er understood Section 27(1) as to mean that a one year period of limitation was applicable. Audioplus (supra) and United Chemicals Industries (supra) are both testimony to this. It is the circulars/notifications of 2008 and No.16/2009 which for the first time harped on the one year period of limitation. Circular No.6/2008, dated 28-4-2008 issued by the C.B.E. C. stated that : 4. Time-Limit: 4.1 In the Notification No.102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007, no specific time-limit has been prescribed for filing a refund application. Under the circumstances, a doubt has been expressed that whether the normal time-limit of six months prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act, would apply. In the absence of specific provision of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification (No. 93), the Customs authorities started insisting that such limitation period which was prescribed with effect from 1-8-2008 (by notification) became applicable. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitation being one such aspect) cannot be formulated or prescribed by subordinate legislation. Khemka and Co. (Agencies) Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 35 STC 571 and other decisions are authority on the question that in matters which deal with substantive rights, such as imposition of penalties and other provisions that adversely affect statutory rights, the parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations; subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail or be made, in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
