Strict construction of refund notifications upheld the one-year time limit for Special Additional Duty claims.

The one-year limitation in the customs notification governing refund of Special Additional Duty was held applicable to the claim, so a refund filed beyond that period was time-barred to that extent. The notification was treated as an exemption provision requiring strict construction, and no vested right to refund outside its terms was recognised. The Delhi High Court ruling cited by the claimant was distinguished as fact-specific because it concerned retrospective application of an amended limitation period, while the Bombay High Court view and earlier Tribunal rulings supported enforcement of the notification's time limit. The refund rejection was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the one-year limitation for refund of Special Additional Duty under the relevant customs notification applied to the claim and barred the refund.

Analysis: The refund claim was filed beyond one year from the relevant payment date and was therefore liable to be tested against the limitation prescribed in the notification. The Delhi High Court decision relied on by the appellant was distinguished on facts, as it dealt with the retrospective application of the limitation introduced by the amending notification. The contrary view of the Bombay High Court, as well as earlier Tribunal decisions on identical issues, upheld the limitation in the notification. The notification, being an exemption provision, was required to be construed strictly, and there was no vested right to refund outside its terms.

Conclusion: The limitation applied, the refund claim was time-barred to that extent, and the rejection of the refund was upheld against the assessee.

---