2022 (6) TMI 1142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ct, 1962, have the standing and statutory backing to prescribe limitation for claiming refund? - HELD THAT:- This Court has taken a view in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. MOLEX INDIA PVT. LTD., [ 2021 (10) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ] agreeing with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by order dated June 20, 2019, this Court has framed five substantial questions of law, the learned standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant restricts it s questions of law to the following: 1. WHETHER the CESTAT was right to hold that a limitation of one year to claim refund of Special Additional Duty imposed vide Notification No.93/2008-Customs dated 01.08.2008 cannot b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act for short). Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) vide order-in-original dated December 29, 2017 has rightly rejected the claim for refund. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated June 8, 2018 has erroneously allowed the appeal. The appeal filed thereon before the CESTAT, Bengaluru has also been erroneously dismissed vide order dated November 15, 2018. 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X