9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the refund claim had to be filed within a period of one year from the date of payment of SAD, in view of the amendment vide Notification no.93/2008- Customs. HELD THAT:- The issue herein is squarely covered by the rulings of the Hon ble Delhi High Courts in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) VERSUS GULATI SALES CORPORATION [ 2017 (11) TMI 1300 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , in favour of appellant. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entative for the respondent ORDER The issue involved in this appeal relates to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant imported goods for trade vide 15 bills of entries during the period 9.05.2008 to 07.08.2008 and paid a total Special A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleased to dismiss the appeal upholding the order-inoriginal. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Jitin Singhal, inter alia, urges that the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon ble Delhi High (jurisdictional High Court) have held in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Delhi) u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), that in absence of the specific provision of Section 27, being made applicable in the said notification, time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not be automatically applicable to refund under the notification. Accordingly, he prays for allowing their appeal with consequential benefits. 5. Ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent relies on the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
