TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to 1.8.2008, the amendment prescribed under Notification No. 93/2008 cannot be made applicable. The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The respondent is held to be entitled to the refund. We further direct the concerned adjudicating authority to disburse the refund within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/87127/2013-Mum - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007 to July 2008 and the Customs Duty was paid vide TR. 6 Challans, wherein all the duties were paid prior to 1.8.2008. The assessee importer claimed refund of Additional Duty of Customs as provided under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dt. 14.09.2007 along with supporting documents. As the said claim was preferred after about 4 years from the date of payment of Customs Duty, including ACD, Vide O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of substitution, in the original notification that the refund of the SAD has to be preferred within a period of one year from payment of duty. 3. The Ld. Counsel for respondent-assessee said that the issue is no longer res-integra. The similar issue was before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi CUSAA 3/2014 CM No.829/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hts, such as imposition of penalties and other provisions that adversely affect statutory rights, the parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations; subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail or be made, in such cases. The imposition of period of limitation for the first time, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore could not prevail. According to Hon'ble Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
