TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court only on limitation. The question of law is kept open. Accordingly, the Commissioner (Appeals) should not have followed the decision of Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . The Revenue preferred this appeal without appreciating the legal implication and making certain observations, which, apparently, are borde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 27-12-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, J. (President) and B. Ravichandran, Member (T) For Appellant: A.K. Singh, AR ORDER Dr. Satish Chandra, J. (President) 1. The Revenue has filed this appeal against order dated 23-10-2017 of Commissioner (Appeals), New Customs House, New Delhi. 2. The dispute involved is the applicability of period of limitation to claim refund of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) should not have followed the decision of Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We note that the Revenue preferred this appeal without appreciating the legal implication and making certain observations, which, apparently, are bordering on contempt of Court. In the appeal, it is submitted, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court is not legally tenable and the Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
