https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246901 The HC held that the limitation period introduced by the amending notification for refund claims of Special Additional Customs Duty cannot be applied retrospectively to goods imported before the amendment, as the original notification lacked any limitation period. The court ruled that essential legislative policies, including limitation periods affecting substantive rights, cannot be imposed through subordinate legislation or notifications without clear statutory backing. Consequently, the amending notification's limitation period was read down and held inapplicable retrospectively. The decision favored the assessee, allowing refund claims beyond the prescribed limitation period introduced by the later notification. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246901 The HC held that the limitation period introduced by the amending notification for refund claims of Special Additional Customs Duty cannot be applied retrospectively to goods imported before the amendment, as the original notification lacked any limitation period. The court ruled that essential legislative policies, including limitation periods affecting substantive rights, cannot be imposed through subordinate legislation or notifications without clear statutory backing. Consequently, the amending notification's limitation period was read down and held inapplicable retrospectively. The decision favored the assessee, allowing refund claims beyond the prescribed limitation period introduced by the later notification. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246901