Refund limitation under SAD notification must follow conditions in force on duty-payment date, not later amendments.

A refund claim for Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was held to be governed by the conditions in force on the date the duty was paid. Because the notification then in force did not prescribe a time limit, a later amendment introducing a one-year limitation could not be applied retrospectively to defeat the claim. The rejection of the refund on limitation grounds was therefore unsustainable, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty was barred by limitation when the notification prescribing a one-year time limit was amended after the duty payment but before the refund claim was filed.

Analysis: The refund claim was filed after payment of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs. At the relevant time, the notification did not prescribe any time limit for filing the refund claim. The later amendment introducing a one-year limitation could not govern a refund claim arising from duty paid before the amendment, and the claim had to be tested under the notification as it stood on the date of payment. The issue was treated as covered by the Tribunal's earlier decision on similar facts.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by limitation and its rejection on that ground was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was entitled to consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under a notification must be governed by the conditions in force on the date of payment of duty, and a subsequently introduced limitation period does not apply retrospectively unless the amending notification clearly so provides.

---