TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the refund claim for Special Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was barred by limitation when the claim was first filed within one year but resubmitted after expiry of the prescribed period, and whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter.
Analysis: The claim was initially lodged within the one-year period prescribed in the notification, but the record did not establish that its withdrawal occurred at the instance of Customs officers. The resubmission was made after expiry of the prescribed period. The time limit in the notification was not extended by any law, rule, or notification, and refund notifications are to be construed strictly. Refund claims under the customs regime are required to be made in accordance with the statutory limitation reflected in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with the principle stated in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Conclusion: The refund claim was time-barred, and the remand order could not be sustained. The appeal was therefore to be allowed in favour of Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The adjudicating authority's rejection of the refund was restored, and the remand directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
