9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that The power to consider that refund claim and grant it, if permissible, is traceable to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it was impossible to ignore the statutory bar and contained in sub-section (1) of Section 27 at any time - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.23 OF 2016, NOTICE OF MOTION NO.333 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 4-10-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr. P.S. Jetly for the appellant Mr. Ashok Dhingra, Ms. Sonia Gupta, Mr. Kunal Kothary i/b. Zerick Dastur ANB Legal for the respondent JUDGMENT ( Per A. S. Oka, J. ) 1. By order dated 23rd August, 2017 by framing two substantial questions of law, the appeal was fixed for fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the said order, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). In appeal, the said order was upheld. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( for short the Appellate Tribunal ). By the impugned order dated 23rd January, 2015 the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent by placing reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del). The Appellate Tribunal held that in the light of the said decision, there is no limitation on claiming refund of SAD. Therefore, a direction was issued under the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, refund will be governed by the limitation as prescribed in the notification. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondentassessee urged that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. has attained finality as a Special Leave Petition preferred against the said judgment has been dismissed by the Apex Court. He placed reliance on a copy of the order passed by the Apex Court. He, would, therefore submit that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Tribunal when it was held that no limitation would apply to the refund claim submitted by the respondent. 8. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. In the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., the Delhi High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the challenge to the limitation imposed by the amended notification. The Division Bench held that the power to grant exemption and refund is conferred on the Central Government and the Government has power to provide for a period or time limit for making an application for refund. Therefore, the Division Bench proceeded to hold that in view of express provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, the time period provided in the amended notification will apply with all the force. 10. It is true that the decision of Delhi High Court was carried to the Apex Court. However, it is pertinent to note the order passed by the Apex Court on the Special Leave Petition. The said order reads as thus: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
