9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d w.e.f. 01.08.2008 by notification became applicable. The impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside - Appeal disposed off. - CUSAA 54/2021 - - - Dated:- 14-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Appellant Through: Mr. Devinder Singh Nagi, Adv. Respondent Through: Mr. Vaibhav Joshi, Adv. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. The only issue, which arises in the present appeal, according to the learned counsel for the parties, concerns application of limitation vis- -vis refund sought qua Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). 2. Mr Vaibhav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lay, keeping the questions of law open. 3.1. It is also the submission of the counsel for the parties that a SLP was preferred in Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. case as well. We are told that the said SLP, which is, numbered as SLP(C) No.1507/2017 has been admitted by the Supreme Court, via order dated 15.04.2019. 3.2. Furthermore, we are informed by the counsel for the parties that no stay has been granted by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP. 4. Mr Sunil, however, informs us that a division bench of the Bombay High Court in the judgement rendered in CMS Info systems Ltd. Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Finance and Ors. 2017 (349) ELT 236 has taken a contra view, qua the issue in hand. 5. We may also add that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were entirely different. The case of Sony India is for the period prior to amendment of notification 102/2007-Cus. Thus this judgment cannot be applied to present case. 6. In our view, the reasoning furnished by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) via order dated 11.05.2020 is flawed, as limitation cannot be prescribed by a notification. 6.1 This aspect of the matter was dealt by this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case. The observations made in that behalf are extracted hereafter: 16. Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act prescribes a time limit of expiry of one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest... . Section 27 (1B) lists out three contingencies when the one year limit applies with modified effect. That pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on within the normal period of six months. Taking into account various factors, it has been decided to permit importers to file claims under the above exemption upto a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. Necessary change in the notification is being made so as to incorporate a specific provision prescribing maximum time-limit of one year from the date of CUSAA 3/2014 Page 12 payment of duty, within which the refund could be filed by any person. It is also clarified that the importers would be entitled to refund of duties only in respect of quantities for which the prescribed documents are made available and the claims submitted within the maximum prescribed time of one year. Unsold stocks would not be eligible for refunds. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
