9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant in the year 2016 itself under the invoice No. R1/240 dated 22.12.2016. Output VAT on such sale was also charged and was paid vide State Government treasury. The N/N. 102/07 of 14.9.2007 (amended) was very much in existence. Ignorance, thereof is not right to be pleaded by the appellant - There is no sufficient reason quoted for waiting till March, 2018. In the absence of such explanation it is held that limitation mentioned in the amended N/N. 102/2007 is rightly invokable for the impugned refund claim. Appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 51003 / 2020 - FINAL ORDER No. 51769/2021 - Dated:- 18-8-2021 - MRS RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Devender Singh Nagi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Ravi Kapoor, Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s amended vide another notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 that one year period got insisted upon for the refund application. It is submitted that imposition of period of limitation for the first time without statutory amendment through a notification may not prevail. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Pee Gee International vs. Commissioner of Customs ICD, TKD, New Delhi, reported in [2016 (343) ELT 72] passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi. Hon ble High Court has relied upon the earlier decision of Sony India Ltd. case and had reiterated that limitation of period of one year is not applicable in the case of refund of SAD. With these submissions learned Counsel has prayed that order under challenge be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t substantial quantity of imported goods was sold by the appellant in the year 2016 itself under the invoice No. R1/240 dated 22.12.2016. Output VAT on such sale was also charged and was paid vide State Government treasury. The Notification No. 102/07 of 14.9.2007 (amended) was very much in existence. Ignorance, thereof is not right to be pleaded by the appellant. In the entire appeal I do not find any explanation as to why the refund claim was not filed within the reasonable time post December, 2016. There is no sufficient reason quoted for waiting till March, 2018. In the absence of such explanation I hold that limitation mentioned in the amended Notification 102/2007 is rightly invokable for the impugned refund claim. Present case is abs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
