Special Additional Duty refund claims must comply with the amended notification's one-year limitation for post-amendment imports.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS, as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-CUS, is subject to the limitation period introduced by the amendment for imports made after that amendment. Where the refund claim is filed beyond one year from payment of duty, the stipulated condition in the notification governs the claim and it cannot be entertained contrary to that time limit. The earlier view relied on by the first appellate authority was distinguished because it concerned retrospective application of the limitation clause to pre-amendment imports. On that basis, the refund claim was not maintainable and the order allowing it was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of Special Additional Duty when the refund claim was filed beyond one year from the date of payment of duty after the amending notification introducing that time limit.

Analysis: The refund was claimed under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-CUS. The time limit introduced by the amending notification was held applicable where the imports were made after the amendment, and the earlier decision relied on by the first appellate authority concerned retrospective application of the limitation clause to imports made before the amendment. The Court followed the view that the limitation prescribed in the notification governs such claims and that the later refund claim could not be entertained contrary to the stipulated condition.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the refund claim filed beyond the prescribed period, and the impugned order allowing the claim was unsustainable.

---