2017 (12) TMI 941

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e said vehicle was registered as Taxi, therefore, under Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.3.2012, the appellant is entitled to refund of excise duty paid by them within six months from the date of payment of duty. Appellant filed refund claim of excise duty paid by them. The said claim was rejected on the ground that as time limit prescribed under Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.3.2012 is six months from the date of payment of duty. As refund claim has been filed beyond six months from the payment of duty, therefore, refund application is not maintainable. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra - 2007 (216) ELT 256 (Tri-Mum) and allowed the refund. Aggrieved from the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del). He also relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Sunrays Engineers Pvt. Ltd. in Civil Appeal No.539/2004 order dated 20.3.2015. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. As facts of the case are not in dispute, therefore, the same are not repeated here for sake of repeatability. The sole issue before me is whether the time limit prescribed under Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.3.2012, which stipulates that refund claim is required to be filed within six months from the date of clearance of vehicle is to be taken as from the date of clearance or from the date of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... If a limitation period is sought to be imposed in respect of refund claims in a case where the importer advances a refund of SADC paid owing to having incurred sales tax/VAT liability on subsequent sale of goods, it must be introduced by legislation, given the expropriatory consequences of such a limitation period. 13. ...... 14. ...... 15. ...... 16. ...... 17. Plainly, therefore. Section 27 was understood as not 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 1-8-2008 (by notificat....