TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2008 - Held that: - there is no murmur of any non-compliance of the conditions specified in the said notification - Circular No. 6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008 prescribes that only a single claim against a particular Bill of Entry should be permitted to be filed within the maximum time period of 1 year. From the wordings of the Circular, it is clear that the same has been issued for the convenience o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 Act, 1975. The refund claims stand rejected by both the authorities below, on the ground that these claims have been filed in contravention of the restrictive condition laid down by the CBEC vide Circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horities 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, which are subsequently sold in the domestic market, subject to payment of VAT/CST and subject to the satisfaction of the conditions specified in the notification. Under the said notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd 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, the Tribunal has allowed the refund claim under the same exemption Notification after over-looking a similar objection by Revenue in the case of Devki Nandan (J) Gupta v. Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or 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, the appeal is allowed . 7. In view of the above, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
