Special additional duty refund limitation cannot be imposed by notification where the right accrues on resale and tax payment proof.

Refund of special additional duty on resale of imported goods was held not to be time-barred where the original exemption notification contained no limitation period. A later amendment introducing a one-year limit could not defeat claims that accrued only upon resale and proof of payment of sales tax or VAT, because limitation could not be imposed by notification without a statutory amendment. The refund was therefore payable under the notification, subject to verification of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of refund of special additional duty on the ground of limitation was valid, and whether the refund was payable under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from resale of imported goods after payment of special additional duty. The original notification governing refund did not prescribe a limitation period, and a later amendment inserting a one-year time limit could not be used to defeat claims where the right to refund accrued only upon resale and proof of payment of sales tax or VAT. The order also noted that the departmental view was contrary to the settled position that limitation for such refund could not be introduced by notification in the absence of a statutory amendment. The refund was directed to be granted after verification of unjust enrichment.

Conclusion: Rejection of the refund claim on limitation was held unsustainable and the assessee was held entitled to refund, subject to verification of unjust enrichment.

---