9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi [ 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - HELD THAT:-It is matter of legal jurisprudential limitation cannot start forum before a right to claim refund arises or crystallizes - Hon ble Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. have also laid down that prior to the date of sale and payment of VAT, limitation cannot start to run, even if provided wron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted goods for the purpose of trade. Upon subsequent sale of goods and on payment of VAT/Sales Tax, as required under exemption Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., the appellant applied for refund on 16-9-2014. The said refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of being time bar, in terms of the refund notification read with amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., read with Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court have admitted the appeal in the case of Wilhelm Textiles [2019 (367) E.L.T. A146 (S.C.)]. It is further urged by Revenue that as the amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. has imposed a limitation period of one year (from date of payment of SAD) to claim refund of SAD, the same is rightly applicable. 4. The Learned DR also relies upon the decision of Division Bench of this Tribunal in CC, N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al duty of Customs. However, the Notification itself mandates the deposit of the said additional duty at the time of importation of the goods and thereafter to get the refund. From this perusal, one thing becomes abundantly clear that the importer has the knowledge of his entitlement to file the refund of additional duty of Customs at the time of the payment of said duty itself i.e. at the time, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, I find no merit in Revenue s appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 7. In view of the law explained by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, the question framed by Division Bench in J.G. Impex (supra) is erroneous and the conclusion is also found to be erroneous, in defiance of law. Thus, in view of the judgment of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the stay application as well as the appeal stand dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
