9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Appeal No. C/30479/2018 - A/30237/2019 - Dated:- 13-2-2019 - Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri N. Bhanu Kiran, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the Appellant. Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS- 000-APP-122-17-18 dated 16.01.2018. 2. The issue which falls for consideration in this case is whether the respondent herein is entitled to the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) at the rate of 4% paid at the time of import under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS dated 14.9.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008- CUS dated 01.8.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the Hon ble High Court of Delhi had in the aforesaid decision examined the retrospective applicability of the limitation imposed in 2008. The specific question of law framed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi was as follows: Can period of limitation for preferring refund claims, specified in the amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., be made applicable with retrospective effect, in absence of a limitation period in the original Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., in respect of goods imported prior to the issue of the amending notification. 4. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi answered this question in negative and in favour of the assessee. Learned departmental representative argues that the first appellate authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r No. 30705/2017 in appeal C/30714/2016-SM dated 7.6.2017 on an identical issue wherein it was held that the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd does not apply where there is no retrospective application of notification 93/2008 in respect of goods imported prior to the amending notification. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd should apply in the present case because although the question formulated by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi was retrospective application of the time limit for claiming SAD refund, operative part of the judgment only says that the notification must be read down to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
