9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also been prescribed therein. The same has been taken note of by Hon ble Delhi High Court even in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - Keeping in view the amendment to be subsequent to the Sony s decision that this Tribunal vide the decisions as relied upon by ld. D.R. had upheld the rejection of SAD refund claim on the basis of time limit. In the recent decision of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD TKD VERSUS THERMOKING [ 2022 (8) TMI 936 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , Hon ble High court of Delhi has also discussed Section 27 of Customs Act. However, still the earlier decision of Sony India has been impressed upon holding that the limitation cannot be prescribed by a Notification, thu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aforesaid Notification No.102/2007 vide subsequent Notification No.93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 has rejected the claim vide Order in Original No.2080 dated 28.02.2019 holding the claim to have been filed beyond a period of one year as prescribed under Notification No.93/2008. Since the said order has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) the appellant is preferred appeal before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Tamanna Alam, ld Authorised Representative for the respondent. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied heavily upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported as 2014 (304) ELT 660 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. J.G. Impex Pvt. Ltd. - Final Order No.53157/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal No. C/52393/2018 [DB] 3. C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. Nav Bharat Trading Corporation - Final Order No.53154/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal No. C/52436/2018 [DB] 6. It is mentioned that in the light of these decisions there is no infirmity in the order under challenge. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 7. While rebutting these submissions of ld. D.R., ld Counsel has mentioned that the decision of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Thermoking (Supra) is a subsequent decision to all the decisions relied upon by the Department. Hon ble High Court of Delhi is the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . D.R. had upheld the rejection of SAD refund claim on the basis of time limit. 9. I also observe that in the recent decision of Commissioner of Customs vs. Thermoking as decided on 18.08.2022, Hon ble High court of Delhi has also discussed Section 27 of Customs Act. However, still the earlier decision of Sony India has been impressed upon holding that the limitation cannot be prescribed by a Notification, thus, holding the Notification No.93/2008 as a flawed one. In view of those findings subsequent to the earlier findings of this Tribunal and also in view of the Code of judicial protocol, it is the recent decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in Termoking (supra) which has to be followed. The Hon ble High Court has held that refund o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
