2015 (6) TMI 998

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e made by the appellant and payment of sales tax, the appellant as per the scheme of the Act and the Rules being entitled to refund of the SAD deposited at the time of import, applied for refund on 27-9-2012 along with duplicate copy and enclosed copy of Bill of Entry duly attested by the Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI, Surat, Xerox copy of TR-6 challan for payment of SAD in full, original invoices of the sale of the imported goods with respect to which the claim and further declaration by the appellant-importer that it is registered with the jurisdictional Sales Tax authorities (Maharashtra) and submitted document evidencing payment of appropriate Sales Tax/VAT. Further, it is recorded that the sale invoice also mentions the TIN No. (under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nded by Notification No. 93/2008 and also in terms of Circular No. 16/2008. 2. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order was pleased to uphold the finding in the Order-in-Original rejecting the refund. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the issue is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.) have held that since SAD - customs duty is refundable only on subsequent sale of the goods, pursuant to import, no limitation period can be imposed for denying refund claim. Right to cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before the Notification No. 93/2008, no period of limitation was specified. The Hon'ble High Court further observed that Section 27 was understood as not applicable to SAD cases even though it was in the statute book for many years. It was further observed by the Hon'ble High Court that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitation being one such aspect) cannot be formulated or prescribed by subordinate legislation i.e. by way of Notification or Circular. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court held that the imposition of a period of limitation for the first time, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore could not prevail. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal with consequential benefit. ....