Mandatory one-year refund limit under amended SAD notification makes delayed claims time-barred and non-extendable.

Refund claims for Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, had to be filed within one year from the date of payment of duty because the amended clause made that period a substantive condition for refund. The time limit was held mandatory, not a mere procedural requirement, and could not be extended on grounds of delay or sufficient cause. Claims falling after the amendment were therefore time-barred, and rejection of the refunds was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, were barred for being filed beyond the prescribed one-year period and whether such period could be treated as merely procedural and extendable.

Analysis: Clause (c) inserted by the amending notification required the importer to file the refund claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the additional duty. The claims in dispute related to periods after the amendment came into force. The prescribed time limit was, therefore, part of the governing refund condition and could not be ignored as a mere procedural formality. The earlier view relied on by the appellants was held inapplicable to claims governed by the amended notification. The reasoning adopted was that the limitation for refund under the notification is mandatory and not capable of extension on grounds of delay or sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The refund claims were held to be time-barred, and the challenge to their rejection failed.

---