9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 934X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-11-2018 - Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Suresh Sastri, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant. Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, Superintendent/AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS-000-APP- 085-16-17 dated 04.04.2015. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported goods under 8 bills of entry and paid Customs Duty including SAD (Special Additional Duty). The appellants have submitted a claim for refund of SAD on 29.12.2014 as per the Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.09.2007. The goods in question were imported on 18.12.2013 and sold on 24.12.2013 and the VAT on the goods sold was paid on 16.01.2014. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CMS Info Systems Ltd [2017 (349) ELT 236 (Bom.)] in which on the question of limitation laid down in Notification No. 102/2007-CUS as amended the Hon ble High Court held that there is no vested, much less absolute right in the petitioners to seek refund. Even a refund must be within the framework of the statute and admissible in the terms thereof. Therefore, the Hon ble High Court of Bombay has upheld the limitation of time provided in Notification No. 102/2007-CUS for claiming refund of SAD. He also emphasised the fact that the exemption notification in this case is an exception to the general rule and it should be strictly construed and in case of any doubt should be decided in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in getting refund and is bound by the statutory provisions laid down in the notifications. On identical issues in the case of Sree Krishna Enterprises (supra) and Surya Telecom Pvt Ltd (supra), this Bench had held that the time limitation specified in Notification No. 102/2007-CUS as amended applies for refund of SAD. I find no reason to deviate from the position already taken. I also find that the question of interpretation of a notification has now been settled by the Constitutional Bench of Apex Court in the case of M/s Dilip Kumar Co. and others (supra) and it has to be strictly interpreted. I, therefore, find that the applications for refund were correctly rejected to the extent they were time barred and the impugned order needs to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
