2017 (6) TMI 883

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....und claims were filed after the expiry of one year as stipulated in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dt. 01/08/2008. 4.  From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the respondents herein imported various goods and filed Bills of Entry dt. 26/03/2013 and 20/03/2013 and discharged applicable customs duty along with special additional duty of customs (SAD) and sold the imported goods imported by them on, payment of CST/VAT and filed refund applications on 26/03/2014. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the ground that the respondent had filed refund claims on 26/03/2014 while the duties were paid in respect of one Bill of Entry on 26/03/2013 and in respect of another ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of filing of refund claim subsequent to the issuance of Notification No.93/2008 dt. 01/08/2008. Hence the ratio as sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel is inappropriate in this case for the amount of refund sought to be claimed in respect of Bill of Entry No.9621442. 6.   As regards the refund claim in respect of Bill of Entry No.0685369 dt. 26/03/2013, I find that the respondents had made the payment of SAD on 26/03/2013 and filed refund claim on 26/03/2014. It is the case of the Revenue that the notification wordings require filing of refund claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment would mean that the respondent should have filed the refund claim on 25/03/2014. He would submit that the impugned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....L., Rourkela Steel Plant reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 732 (T) and the West Regional Bench in the case of J.B.A. Printing Inks Ltd. v. CC, Bombay reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 551 (T) is fully applicable to the facts of this case because what has been decided is that Section 9 of the General Clauses Act is applicable to all Central Acts including the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the date of payment of duty has to be excluded. Similarly, first day on which the goods were received in the factory has to be excluded for the purpose of counting the limitation period. The provisions of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. Under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act it ha....