9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, they filed the refund claims in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dt. 14/07/2007. The said refund claims were returned by the Department stating the reason that the assessments have not been finalised. Later vide letter dt. 05/12/2008, appellants requested the Department to confirm at their end whether the appellant can file the refund claims after finalisation of the assessment even if the time limit of one year from the date of payment of SAD is over. Since they did not get any response from the Department, the appellants filed 4 refund claims and these were initially rejected by the Refund Sanctioning Authority. In appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the refund claims. The present appeal is regarding the rejection of 8 refu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claim. 5. I have heard the submissions made by both, sides. Evidently, the duty (SAD) has been paid by the appellant in respect of the 8 refund claims prior to 01/08/2008. The relevant para of the Notification No.93/2008 which prescribes the time limit is reproduced as under :- (c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said additional duty of customs. 6. Thus even if a time limit is prescribed by Notification, the same has to be reckoned from the date of payment of duty. In the present case since the SAD has been paid by the appellant prior to 01/08/2008, I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be entitled, if the same is filed within one year but the duty is payable pursuant to Notification 102/2007 dated 14th September '07 prior to 1-8-2008, the limitation period is not applicable in the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the appellant holding time bar, is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 7. The issue stands covered by the above referred judgment relied upon by the counsel. Following the same, I hold that the rejection of refund claims is unjustified and the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. (Order pronounced and dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
