Refund limitation under Customs notification cannot be imported by implication where no express time limit exists.

A refund claim for Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs cannot be treated as time-barred unless the notification itself validly prescribes a limitation period. The text states that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be imported into the notification by amendment or implication where the original notification contained no express time limit, and limitation could not begin before the refund entitlement crystallised. It also notes that the contrary view in the rejection order was distinguished. On that basis, the refund claim was held not barred by limitation, with refund and interest payable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund of Special Additional Duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs was barred by limitation and whether the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be applied when the notification did not itself prescribe such limitation.

Analysis: The refund claim arose under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, and the governing question was whether a limitation period could be imported into that notification by way of amendment or by reference to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The order records that the jurisdictional High Court had already held that, in the absence of an express limitation in the original notification, a time limit could not be introduced through subordinate legislation and limitation could not commence before the refund entitlement crystallised. The contrary view relied upon in the rejection order was distinguished.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred, and the assessee was entitled to refund along with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under a notification cannot be rejected as time-barred unless the notification itself validly prescribes the limitation period, and a statutory limitation cannot be imported by implication where the right to refund crystallises later.

---