TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m imposed by the Notification No 93/2008-CUS does not apply. Although the question framed by the Delhi High Court in Sony India was in the context of imports made prior to the issue of Notification, No. 93/2008-CUS and sold after the issue of this Notification, the operative part of the judgment categorically holds that the amending Notification No. 93/2008-Cus must be read down to the extent that it is imposes a limitation period. Therefore, the limitation in the Notification does not apply. The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed no error in relying on Sony India and allowing refund - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 52191 OF 2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 50379/2022 - Dated:- 25-4-2022 - MR P. VENKATA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department against the order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground of delay [ 2016 (337) ELT A 102 (SC) ]. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, set aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner and allowed refund of special addition duty paid by the appellant. 4. Revenue has filed this appeal on the following grounds: (i) The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd and that case pertains to the question whether the limitation of time applies to refund claims filed after Notification No. 93/2008-CUS dated 01.08.2008 was issued but where the imports were made prior to that date. The present case is different inasmuch as the imports were made afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he denial of the refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS, read with Section 27 of the Customs Act. The question of law that arises for determination in this appeal is Can period of limitation for preferring refund claims, specifically in the amending Notification No. 93/2008-CUS., be made applicable with retrospective effect, in absence of a limitation period in the original Notification No. 102/2007-CUS., in respect of goods imported prior to the issue of the amending notification. 18. For those reasons, this court holds that the amending notification must be read down to the extent that it imposes a limitation period. The question of law framed is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
