2017 (6) TMI 33

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., AR- for the respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order rejecting their refund claim as time barred. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is importer and trader. The appellant imported certain goods and paid duty thereon along with SAD. The said goods were sold by the appellant in open market for home consumption and paid VAT/CST....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. reported in 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del.) and held that in such cases limitation is not applicable in terms of Notification No. 93/2008, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the refund claim be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2016 (337) ELT A102 (S.C.) wh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... an entirely market driven event, is complete. Given the vagaries of the market, the  importer has limited control over when the sale is complete. To uphold a limitation period starting from the date of payment of duty, as prescribed in the amending notification, would amount to allowing the commencement of a limitation period for refund claims before the right of refund has even accrued. To ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot applying to SAD cases, even though it was in the statute book for many years. Yet, with the introduction of the circular and then the notification (no. 93) the Customs authorities started insisting that such limitation period which was prescribed with effect from 01.08.2008 (by notification) became applicable. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitatio....