https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362884 Strict compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-CUS, as amended, was required for SAD refund, including filing the claim within one year of duty payment. The Tribunal held that the limitation condition formed part of the exemption scheme and could not be ignored merely because another High Court decision was relied on in a different factual context. It preferred the Bombay High Court view that the time-limit was operative and not unconstitutional in the absence of contrary binding authority. The refund claims, having been filed beyond the prescribed period, were time-barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting relief. en-us Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 12:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362884 Strict compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-CUS, as amended, was required for SAD refund, including filing the claim within one year of duty payment. The Tribunal held that the limitation condition formed part of the exemption scheme and could not be ignored merely because another High Court decision was relied on in a different factual context. It preferred the Bombay High Court view that the time-limit was operative and not unconstitutional in the absence of contrary binding authority. The refund claims, having been filed beyond the prescribed period, were time-barred and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in granting relief. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362884