TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Delhi High Courts SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , in favour of appellant holding that refund claim of SAD is not time barred as no such limitation is prescribed under the original notification no. 102/2007-Customs. Further, the ruling of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in M/S. CMS INFO SYSTEMS LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DER The issue involved in this appeal relates to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No.102 of 2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2000-Customs. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant imported goods for trade vide 3 bills of entries during the period 06.08.2008 to 30.08.2008 and paid a total Special Additional Duty (SAD) during 20.08.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leased to dismiss the appeal, upholding the order-in-original. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri Jitin Singhal, inter alia, urges that the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon ble Delhi High (jurisdictional High Court) have held in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Delhi) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), that in absence of the specific provision of Section 27, being made applicable in the said notification, time limit prescribed in Section 27 would not be automatically applicable to refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Accordingly, he prays for allowing their appeal with consequential benefits. 5. Ld. Authorised Representative for the respondent relies ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
