https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370591 The one-year limitation in the customs notification governing refund of Special Additional Duty was held applicable to the claim, so a refund filed beyond that period was time-barred to that extent. The notification was treated as an exemption provision requiring strict construction, and no vested right to refund outside its terms was recognised. The Delhi High Court ruling cited by the claimant was distinguished as fact-specific because it concerned retrospective application of an amended limitation period, while the Bombay High Court view and earlier Tribunal rulings supported enforcement of the notification's time limit. The refund rejection was upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:48:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370591 The one-year limitation in the customs notification governing refund of Special Additional Duty was held applicable to the claim, so a refund filed beyond that period was time-barred to that extent. The notification was treated as an exemption provision requiring strict construction, and no vested right to refund outside its terms was recognised. The Delhi High Court ruling cited by the claimant was distinguished as fact-specific because it concerned retrospective application of an amended limitation period, while the Bombay High Court view and earlier Tribunal rulings supported enforcement of the notification's time limit. The refund rejection was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370591