Binding jurisdictional precedent on SAD refund limitation prevails, and an open-question SLP does not displace it.

The refund of Special Additional Duty on imported goods was discussed in the context of limitation under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., with the jurisdictional High Court ruling treated as binding because no contrary higher court decision had overridden it. A dismissal of SLP keeping the question of law open did not weaken that precedent. The commentary also notes that a coordinate appellate authority is expected to follow the jurisdictional High Court in the absence of any contrary ruling, making the Commissioner (Appeals)' reliance on that decision justified and sustaining the refund claim in favour of the importer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty paid on imported goods was barred by limitation under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14-9-2007; (ii) whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the jurisdictional High Court decision on the refund issue.

Issue (i): Whether the refund claim of Special Additional Duty paid on imported goods was barred by limitation under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14-9-2007.

Analysis: The impugned order followed the jurisdictional High Court decision holding that rejection of refund on limitation was not sustainable. The appellate record disclosed no contrary ruling overruling that decision, and the Revenue's challenge proceeded on an SLP dismissal where the question of law was kept open, which did not displace the binding effect of the High Court ruling.

Conclusion: The limitation objection to the refund claim was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the jurisdictional High Court decision on the refund issue.

Analysis: A coordinate authority was bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court decision in the absence of any overruling or contrary higher court ruling. The Revenue's attempt to challenge that approach was found to reflect a casual disregard of binding precedent.

Conclusion: The Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in following the jurisdictional High Court decision.

Final Conclusion: The refund denial based on limitation failed, and the appellate authority's order was sustained in favour of the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of any contrary higher court ruling, the jurisdictional High Court's decision on refund limitation remains binding, and an SLP dismissal keeping the question of law open does not displace that precedent.

---