TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly filed refund claim for amount however sanctioning authority disposed of refund for partial amount but in respect of balance amount neither rejected nor even disposed of and has not given any findings for this refund – Since appellant admittedly filed refund claim for balance amount along with all documents, refund claim was well within stipulated time period of one year and same should not have been rejected on time bar – On very same issue Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that in respect duty paid prior to amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. one year period shall not apply – Appellant correctly and legally entitled for refund claim – Decided in favour of Assesse. - C/88696/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng differential duty of ₹ 4,38,23,262/-. The appellant filed refund application of the said portion of duty paid of ₹ 1,81,11,555/- (SAD amount of ₹ 1,64,26,045/- initially paid vide TR6 Challan No. 20597745, dated 9-5-2008 plus SAD amounting of ₹ 16,85,510/- paid vide Cash Nos. 154/13-5-2008 and 203/16-5-2008 as demanded by the DRI in Show Cause Notice). The refund claim was filed in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007. Dy Commissioner of Customs, CRARS, NCH, Mumbai-1 vide his Order-in-Original No. 830/2010, dated 26-4-2010 sanctioned refund of ₹ 92,16,826/- and rejected the refund of ₹ 72,09,219/-. In the order dated 24-4-2010, Dy Commissioner did not expressly reject the amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority. Since claim of this amount was initially filed in time therefore it cannot be said that there is delay in filing the refund claim. As regards violation of para 4.2 of C.B.E. C. Board Circular No. 6/2008-Cus., dated 28-4-2008, he submits that in fact the appellant has not filed two refund claim against one bill of entry, the refund in respect of this amount of ₹ 16,85,510 was included in single refund claim which was made on 4-5-2009. The second refund claim should not be considered as a separate claim as the same was submitted as on abundant precaution and as per the direction of the refund sanctioning authority. He submits that in any case even the refund claim considered to be filed after one year, the limitation of one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 85,510/- along with all the documents on 4-5-2009 the refund claim was well within stipulated time period of one year and same should not have been rejected on time bar. It is also admitted fact that the time limit of one year in the Notification No. 102/2007 was prescribed vide amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008. In the present case the duty was paid on 9-5-2008, 13-5-2008 and 16-5-2008 therefore, at the time of payment, the limitation of one year was not into effect therefore, in this case time limit of one year is not applicable. On the very same issue Hon ble Delhi High Court Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that in respect duty paid prior to the amendment Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 for claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
