2013 (11) TMI 1043

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o, Superintendent (AR) JUDGEMENT The appellant filed 3 refund claims on 31.08.2009, 04.09.2009 and 30.09.2009 claiming refund of SAD paid by them at the time of import after the products imported (watch) were sold in the domestic market. In respect of 2 claims filed on 04.09.2009 and 30.09.2009, the claims have been rejected on the ground that the declaration required to be made on the invoi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2009 cannot be sustained and accordingly the appellant is held as eligible for the refund claims filed on these dates amounting to Rs. 4,40,910/- and Rs. 5,82,735/- respectively. 2. As regards the refund claim filed on 31.08.2009, the claim is time-barred having been filed beyond one year from the date of payment of duty. It was submitted by the learned counsel that assessment was provisional a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....International Vs. CCE, Kanpur - [2013 (292) E.L.T. 102 (Tri.-Del.)] wherein it was held that provisions under Section 27 of Customs Act 1962 cannot be read into provision for refund of SAD in Notification No. 102/2007. Therefore period of one year has to be taken from the date of payment of duty. 3. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As regards the decision in the case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on which is based on specific facts of the case cannot be taken into account or considered for this purpose. The more appropriate decision in my opinion is the decision in the case of Global International relied upon by the learned AR wherein a view has been taken that provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be read into Notification No. 102/2007. No doubt the decision in the case of ....