Tribunal grants appeal for SAD refund denial, citing timely filing and legal provisions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the denial of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) based on limitation. The appellant's claim, filed within one year of the Supreme Court's decision and in accordance with Section 27 provisions, was deemed timely. The Tribunal considered the impact of a Board circular on the limitation period, concluding that the refund claim was not time-barred. As there was no dispute on facts and the appellant's claim aligned with legal provisions, the impugned order was overturned, granting the appellant consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against denial of refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) based on limitation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Timber Round Logs and paid 4% SAD. Later, a refund claim was filed based on an exemption under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus, which required filing within one year from SAD payment. The claim was rejected due to being beyond the limitation period.
2. The appellant argued that the claim was timely as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, Circular No. 15/2010-Cus, and the purpose of avoiding double taxation of SAD and VAT.
3. The appellant contended that the SAD was paid on goods not consumed, and VAT was paid on subsequent sale, justifying the refund. The claim was filed within one year of the Supreme Court's decision, as per Section 27(1B)(b) of the Customs Act.
4. The appellant highlighted that a Board circular prevented refund claims until the issue was resolved by the Supreme Court, adjusting the relevant date for limitation calculation to the Supreme Court's decision date.
5. The Tribunal found no dispute on facts, noted the appellant's regular refund filings, and the department's non-refund based on a condition not met. The refund claim was filed within one year of the Supreme Court's decision, aligning with Section 27 provisions.
6. The Tribunal considered the impact of the Board circular on the limitation period, concluding that the refund claim was not time-barred. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---