Tribunal rules in favor of appellants on SAD refund appeals, overturning time-barred rejections. Interest granted.

The Tribunal dismissed the department's appeals regarding the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) as per Notification No. 102/2007, affirming the appellants' entitlement to the refund. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest for one appeal but rejected others as time-barred due to alleged delays in filing. The Tribunal found the rejection unjustified, as evidence suggested all orders were received simultaneously on 28.2.2019. Consequently, the rejection of appeals based on timeliness was overturned, allowing the appeals related to Orders-in-Original dated 20.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Refund of SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007.
2. Rejection of interest for delayed refund.
3. Time-barred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed refund claims for SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007, which were initially rejected by the original authority but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals, making the issue of refund final. However, the original authority did not grant interest for the delayed refund, leading to the appellant filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for three refund claims.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest for one appeal related to an Order-in-Original dated 23.2.2019 but rejected the appeals concerning Orders-in-Original dated 20.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 as time-barred due to delays of three days and one day, respectively, in filing the appeals. The appellant argued that they received all orders on 28.2.2019 and had requested proof from the department, which confirmed the receipt date for one order but not for the other. The appellant contended that all appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit and should not be considered time-barred.

3. The department argued that the appellant failed to prove the receipt date of the orders and did not file for condonation of delay within the allowable period. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed interest for one order received on 28.2.2019, indicating that all three orders were likely received on the same date. As the department could not provide evidence of earlier receipt, the appeals were considered timely from 28.2.2019. Consequently, the rejection of appeals as time-barred lacked legal basis, and the impugned orders related to Orders-in-Original dated 20.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 were set aside, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief.

---