2015 (5) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Consultant In all these appeals, issue involved is same and therefore, all the four appeals taken together for the disposal and a common order is passed. 2. The issue involved is whether refund of SAD claimed by the assessee-respondent relating to the period prior to the date of issue of amending Notification No. 93/2008 dated 1.8.2008, time limit of one year prescribed for availing refund clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision, a subsequent amendment making express provision would have retrospective effect. 4. Learned consultant on behalf of the respondent relies on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.)] and submits that time limit of one year would not be applicable to all the refund claims under co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods imported prior to the issue of the amending notification." Finally, in paragraph 17, Hon'ble High Court reached a conclusion that time limit fixed in Notification No. 93/2008 dated 1-8-2008 itself cannot be sustained in the absence of inclusion of refund claim for SAD under Section 77 of Customs Act, 1962. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under : "17. Plainly, therefore. Section 27 w....