https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776825 The HC allowed the writ: the petitioner's refund claims were filed in time, initially met with adverse orders but CESTAT remanded the matter and the original authority subsequently allowed the refund. The court held the one-year limitation for refund runs from payment/import provided compliance with the specified notification, and the petitioner had borne the customs duty. The contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required was rejected because that provision applies only when refund follows orders of the specified authorities. Petition allowed. en-us Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:34:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776825 The HC allowed the writ: the petitioner's refund claims were filed in time, initially met with adverse orders but CESTAT remanded the matter and the original authority subsequently allowed the refund. The court held the one-year limitation for refund runs from payment/import provided compliance with the specified notification, and the petitioner had borne the customs duty. The contention that a fresh claim under s.27(1-B) was required was rejected because that provision applies only when refund follows orders of the specified authorities. Petition allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776825