9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 7/2015 dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) IGI Airport, New Delhi. The dispute pertains to refund claims filed by the appellant under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 in respect of additional duty of Customs paid under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er submitted that the restrictive conditions in the CBEC circular cannot take away the substantive benefit granted by the said notification. 4. Ld. DR reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 5. Notification No. 102/2007- Cus, dated 14.9.2007 provides for refund of Additional duty of Customs in lieu of VAT, which is commonly referred to as SAD paid on the goods at the time of import, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lear that the same has been issued for the convenience of processing of the refund claims on regular periodicity. The Circular, however, does not specify any condition to say that a second refund claim filed in a month would be barred. In any case, it is well settled that the substantial benefit granted by law cannot be taken away by a circular. 6. We also find that under similar circumstances, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held keeping in mind that though there is procedure to file one refund in a month or in the quarter as case may be but since time limit of one year is prescribed for filing refund claim the said procedure infraction should not come in way of the substantial claim of the assessee. In view of my above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for refund claim. Hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
