2011 (6) TMI 524

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cleared goods against the 4 Bills of Entry No. 803157, 799361, 775758,768618 dated 25.04.08, 19.04.08,04.04.08, 31.03.08 respectively. The appellant claimed benefit of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14/09/2007 and claimed the refund of SAD. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the refund of Rs.5,56,000/- in respect of Bill of Entry Nos. 775758 and 768618 dated 04.04.08  and 31.03.08 respectively on the ground of time bar. The appellant challenged the order before Commissioner (Appeals), The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the lower adjudicating authorities order and rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence the appeal. 4.  The contention of the appellant is that they are eligible for the benefit Notification No.102/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the assessee. 5. The contention of the department is that Board Circular No. 06/08-Cus. dt. 28.4.2008 prescribe time limit of 1 year. The Ld. SDR also placed reliance in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) held that in every case of refund under Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 will be applicable. The contention is that the Notification has been amended w.e.f. 1.8.2008. The contention is that the law limitation prevailing at material time there  will be applicable to the case. Ld. SDR has also placed reliance on Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Uttam Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 274 (Bom.) wherei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Audioplus (supra) while relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. (supra) allowed the benefit to the assessee, in the similar circumstances. So far as the case law cited by the Ld. SDR, is concerned, there is no dispute that every refund claim has to be as per Section 11B or Section 27 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Customs Act,1962 respectively. However, the benefit in this case is granted vide Notification No. 102/2007 where no time limit was prescribed, the time limit was prescribed only vide amending Notification No. 93/2008. Therefore, Section 11B is not applicable to the said notification which is clear from the amendment to the notification. Therefore the case law cited are not relat....