2013 (11) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... According to the Notification No. 102/2007, appellant is eligible for refund of SAD paid on imports subject to the fulfillment of conditions specified in the notification. The claims have been rejected on various grounds. 3. Heard both sides. Each ground is taken up separately and discussed below: 3.1. Refund claim in respect of 4 bills of entry have been rejected on the ground that the refund claims were filed after expiry of one year from the date of payment of duty. It was submitted by the learned consultant on behalf of the appellants that the limitation of one year for the purpose of filing refund claim was introduced by amending the notification by issuing of Notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 and the claims which have b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tificate issued by dealers subsequently stating that they had not taken CENVAT credit. Further he also submitted that ceramic tiles sold by them are basically consumer items and therefore CENVAT credit is invariably not admissible and further they had not sold the same to any manufacturer also. Further he also relies upon the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Mumbai [2013 (292) E.L.T. 252 (Tri.-Mum.)] and R.K.G International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Noida [2013 (290) E.L.T. 253 (Tri.-Del.)] to submit that even when there was no such declaration, the Tribunal took the view that in the circumstances which have been mentioned by the learned consultant, the SAD refund could not have been rejected. In the ab....