TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicable or not - Held that:- Issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT ). In such a situation, I do not consider it necessary to discuss various submissions made by learned A.R. on behalf of the Revenue-appellant. - Since the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has already taken a view and no cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable or not. 3. Learned A.R. submits that all the refund claims were filed after amending notification which had come into force on 1.8.2008. Therefore, time-bar prescribed under Notification No. 93/2008 should have been applied and decision of the Commissioner taking a view that one year period will not apply to this case for refund arising prior to 1.8.2008 is not correct. The Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In such a situation, I do not consider it necessary to discuss various submissions made by learned A.R. on behalf of the Revenue-appellant. 6. In Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case, Hon ble High Court has framed the issue fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ases, even though it was in the statute book for many years. Yet, with the introduction of the circular and then the notification (No. 93), the Customs authorities started insisting that such limitation period which was prescribed with effect from 1-8-2008 (by notification) became applicable. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitation being one such aspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|