TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nowhere limits the claim for refund, which would otherwise ensure to the benefit of Assessee - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.(C) 3801/2018 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2018 - MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. A. K. CHAWLA JJ. Petitioner Through: Mr. A.R. Madav Rao, Ms. Pragya Awasthi and Mr. Anurag Soan, Advocates. Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Farman Ali and Mr. Nitish Gupta, Advocates. Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey with Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocates for UOI Mr. Samar Jain, Standing counsel with Mr. Surigya Awasthy and Mr. Zora Kumar Gupta, Advocates. MR. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) 1. Service of notice is complete for all the parties. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, Mr. Samar Jain and Mr. Sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period of limitation prescribed in the Notification could not be made applicable in cases where SAD was levied. 4. The petitioner then also relies upon Micromax Informatics Limited versus Union of India Others, W.P.(C) 9178/2017 decided on 16.01.2018 . The reasoning in RISO (supra) was reiterated and the Court declared that para 4.3 of the Circular 6/2008-Cus dated 24.04.2008, could not be given effect to. In that circular, the Central Board of Excise Customs (CBEC) had clarified that there was no specific provision for payment of interest in Notification 102-2017Cus dated 14.09.2007 under which the importer applied and was granted refund of SAD. 5. The respondents submit that the position adopted by the Revenue is correct i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order is appealable. Contention of the petitioner in this regard is two-fold. Firstly, the issue is covered by the decision in Riso India Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and, therefore, filing of appeal is not required and is a formality. Secondly, it is submitted that the authorities in spite of the decision of Delhi High Court in Riso India Pvt. Ltd. And of Madras High Court in KSJ Metal Impex (P) Ltd. have followed the circular. In these circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the validity of this circular itself as being contrary to the legislative intent and Section 27A of the Customs Act. This challenge cannot be made before the Customs Authorities. We find merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner to meet the challenge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
