TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , i.e. beyond the period of one year as prescribed under the said notification. The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NSIII VERSUS DSM SINOCHEM PHARMACEUTICALS (I) PVT. LTD. [ 2017 (11) TMI 558 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is well settled that doctrine of merger is not applicable w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. The Appellant had filed the total refund of ₹ 20,04,286/- on 30.12.2016 for the import made on 15.12.2015 under Notification No.102/2007-Cus, dt.14.09.2007. The Adjudicating authority sanctioned refund except for ₹ 1,25,920/-, observing that since the said refund claim pertains to import made on 15.12.2015 and payment of SAD was made on 18.12.2015 but filed on 30.12.2016, hence, bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd (supra). Hon ble High Court in paras 9, 10 and 11, observed as follows:- 9. In the case of CMS Info Systems Limited, the Division Bench of this Court dealt with a Writ Petition wherein the challenge was to the stipulation of limitation prescribed in the notification dated 1st August, 2008. Perusal of the decision of this Court shows that attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication will apply with all the force. 10. It is true that the decision of Delhi High Court was carried to the Apex Court. However, it is pertinent to note the order passed by the Apex Court on the Special Leave Petition. The said order reads as thus : - The Special Leave Petition is dismissed on the ground of limitation. Needless to say, the question of law is kept open. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
