TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 17/07/2008 wherein 4% SAD, amounting to Rs. 1,11,556.90 was paid. The goods were detained by CIU for certain investigation. The appellant approached the hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the hon'ble High Court has directed to release the goods on provisional basis vide order dated 17/03/2010 in W.P. No. 1418/2010. Accordingly, the goods were released against P.D. Bond vide letter dated 19/03/2010 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, CIU. Thereafter, the appellant sold the goods and filed refund claim under Notification 102/2007-Cus in respect of 4% SAD on 15/09/2010. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation as the refund claim was filed after 1 year from the date of payment of Customs d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has held that the amendment by Notification 93/2008-Cus dated 01/08/2008 cannot be made applicable retrospectively and he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the impugned order. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. There is no dispute that the filing of the Bill of Entry and payment of Customs duty has taken place on 17/07/2008 and 18/07/2008 respectively. At that time there was no time-limit prescribed for filing of refund claims in the Notification 102/2007-Cus. The Notification No. 102/2007 is an exemption Notification from payment of customs duty by way of refund mechanism. The applicability of the Noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.1 In the Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, dated 14-9-2007, no specific time - limit has been prescribed for filing a refund application. Under the circumstances, a doubt has been expressed that whether the normal time-limit of six months prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs Act, would apply. In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time-limit prescribed in this section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification. Further, it was also represented that the goods imported may have to be dispatched for sale to different parts of the country and that the importer may find it difficult to dispose of the imported goods and complete the requisite docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es) Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 35 STC 571 and other decisions are authority on the question that in matters which deal with substantive rights, such as imposition of penalties and other provisions that adversely affect statutory rights, the parent enactment must clearly impose such obligations; subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail or be made, in such cases. The imposition of a period of limitation for the first time, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore could not prevail. 18. For these reasons, this Court holds that the amending notification must be read down to the extent that it imposes a limitation period. The question of law framed is therefore, answered in fav....