9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Authority. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose are that the appellant had imported 9 consignments of fabrics during the period from 23.06.2016 to 24.11.2016 and had paid the customs duty as per the assessment, including SAD. It is on 12.10.2018 that the amount of Rs.7,85,947/-, as was paid as SAD was prayed to be refunded. On examination, the claim was observed to be barred by time. The original adjudicating authority while relying upon the amendment in the aforesaid Notification No.102/2007 vide subsequent Notification No.93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 has rejected the claim vide Order in Original No.2080 dated 28.02.2019 holding the claim to have been filed beyond a period of one year as prescribed under Notification No.93/2008. Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in Sony India was prior the Notification in question was got amended. For the subsequent period since Notification No.93 is in existence prescribing a time limit of one year for filing the refund claim of SAD that the limitation has to be followed. Ld. DR has relied upon the following decisions of Tribunal:- 1. C.C. - New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. Indu Exporters- Final Order No. 53156/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal No.C /52435/2018 [DB]. 2. C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. J.G. Impex Pvt. Ltd. - Final Order No.53157/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal No. C/52393/2018 [DB] 3. C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. Nav Bharat Trading Corporation - Final Order No.53154/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation got amended vide Notification No.93/2008 wherein one year time period was prescribed for filing the refund claim. Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 talks about the refund and a time limit has also been prescribed therein. The same has been taken note of by Hon'ble Delhi High Court even in Soni India Pvt. Ltd. Keeping in view the amendment to be subsequent to the Sony's decision that this Tribunal vide the decisions as relied upon by ld. D.R. had upheld the rejection of SAD refund claim on the basis of time limit. 9. I also observe that in the recent decision of Commissioner of Customs vs. Thermoking as decided on 18.08.2022, Hon'ble High court of Delhi has also discussed Section 27 of Customs Act. However, still the earlier decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
