9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r availing the said exemption. Though this N/N. 102/2007 is silent about any time limit for seeking the refund but in the subsequent amendment thereto vide notification no. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008 the time period for filling the application for refund of said SAD is specified as one year from the date of payment of SAD. This amendment makes it abundantly clear that the imports, post this amendment, have to comply with the condition as that of limitation, as well, while seeking the refund of the duty (SAD) as was paid at the time of import. In view of the entire above discussions it stands clear that the decision of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is not applicable to the cases of import made after the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no. 5337695 dated 29.4.2014 and 5259961 dated 22.4.2014. The said refund claim was rejected by the original adjudicating authority vide order bearing no. 1218/2015 dated 13.11.2015. However, Commissioner (A) vide order in appeal no. 534/2019 dated 18.9.2019 had allowed the said refund. Department being aggrieved that the aforementioned review order was passed consequent whereto the impugned appeal before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard learned DR for the Department. It is submitted that the refund on SAD in lieu of exemption provided by virtue of notification no. 102/2007 has provided a time limit of one year by a subsequent amendment in the notification vide notification no. 93/2008-CUS. It is submitted that apparently the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SAD) as was paid at the time of import. 6. I observe that Commissioner (A) while rejecting the decision of original adjudicating authority for the refund being time barred has relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported as 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del), but I am of the opinion that in the said case the import into India was prior the notification no. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008. Subsequent to the said notification this issue has been discussed by the Hon ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Purab Textiles (supra) wherein it was held that decision of Delhi High Court in Sony India (Supra) case is not applicable for the reason that the import of good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
