Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 46 - AT - CustomsRefund of SAD - time limitation prescribed under N/N. 102/2007 - rejection holding the claim to have been filed beyond a period of one year as prescribed under Notification No.93/2008 - HELD THAT:- No doubt the period involved in the said decision is of the year 2007 when Notification No.102/2007 had no time limit prescribed for filing the refund claim of SAD. However, in August, 2008 the said Notification got amended vide Notification No.93/2008 wherein one year time period was prescribed for filing the refund claim. Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 talks about the refund and a time limit has 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, 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 which has to be followed. The Hon’ble High Court has held that refund of SAD cannot be rejected on the grounds of limitation. The order under challenge is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed.
|