https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416425 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD), holding that the limitation period for filing the claim should start from the subsequent sale of goods, not the date of SAD payment. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony India, the Tribunal emphasized that procedural requirements should not hinder substantive refund rights, overturning the rejection based on the one-year limit from the SAD payment date. The Tribunal underscored that statutory provisions should align with the accrual of refund entitlements, granting the appellant the refund with consequential benefits. en-us Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Dec 2021 08:44:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416425 The Tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claim for Special Additional Duty (SAD), holding that the limitation period for filing the claim should start from the subsequent sale of goods, not the date of SAD payment. Relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Sony India, the Tribunal emphasized that procedural requirements should not hinder substantive refund rights, overturning the rejection based on the one-year limit from the SAD payment date. The Tribunal underscored that statutory provisions should align with the accrual of refund entitlements, granting the appellant the refund with consequential benefits. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416425