TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ough: Ms Anushree Narain, Adv. Respondent Through: None. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL) CM Appl. 42983/2022 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. CUSAA 151/2022 CM Appl. 42984/2022 [Application filed on behalf of appellant seeking interim relief] 2. Ms Anushree Narain, who appears on behalf of the appellant, informs us that the issue which arises in the present matter also obtained inter alia, in CUSAA No. 54/2021, titled Premier Timber Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Customs Import. 2.1 To recapitulate, the only issue which arises for consideration in this appeal concerns the application of limitation vis- -vis refund sought qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.03.2022 passed by the Tribunal. 7. We may also note that in Premier Timber Trading case, we have made the following observations: 5. We may also add that the authorities below have sought to distinguish the judgment rendered by this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. by furnishing the following reasons, in the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.05.2020: 5.4 Regarding the case laws cited by the Appellant, I find that Pee Gee International case [2016 (343) ELT 72(Del.)] and Siya Paper Mart Pvt. Ltd. cases refer to the Sony India decision. I find that the period involved in the Sony India case was from 01.12.2007 to 05.12.2007. In the instant case, the period involved is of 2016. It is to be noted that the Notification No. 102/2007Cus dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest... . Section 27 (1B) lists out three contingencies when the one year limit applies with modified effect. That provision has the effect of shifting the date from which the refund claim is to be reckoned. All that can be inferred from the term so far as may be would be that specific provisions relating to the mechanism applicable for refund, in the Customs Act, applied; not the period CUSAA 3/2014 Page 11 of limitation. The Customs authorities had never understood Section 27(1) as to mean that a one year period of limitation was applicable. Audioplus (supra) and United Chemicals Industries (supra) are both testimony to this. It is the circulars/notifications of 2008 and No. 16/2009 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the prescribed documents are made available and the claims submitted within the maximum prescribed time of one year. Unsold stocks would not be eligible for refunds. Notification No 93/2008 dated 01.8.2008 was issued prescribing the period of limitation as one year from the date of payment of additional duty of Customs. 17. Plainly, therefore, Section 27 was understood as not applying to SAD cases, even though it was in the statute book for many years. Yet, with the introduction of the circular and then the notification (No. 93), the Customs authorities started insisting that such limitation period which was prescribed with effect from 01.08.2008 (by notification) became applicable. There is a body of law that essential legisla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
