TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sequently, the Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 21.01.2016 proposing rejection of their refund claim alleging barred by limitation prescribed under the said Notification. On adjudication, the refund was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who, in turn, rejected their appeal. Hence the present appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the refund claim being filed under Notification 102/2007-Cus. Dated 14.09.2007 therefore, the period of limitation prescribed under the said Notification is not applicable to the present case. In support he has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs CC, New Delhi-2014 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ules and mechanism for refund are incorporated by reference in Section 3(5) of the CTA only "so far as may be" applicable. Since SADC is levied under Section 3(5) and that is refundable only on subsequent sale, then, no limitation period can possibly be imposed for advancing a refund claim. We have carefully perused the above observations and in the light of the analysis of the statutory provisions and the scheme of refund by us, with greatest respect, we are unable to agree with the High Court of Delhi on this point. The Rules and Regulations under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962, including those relating to drawback, refund and exemption shall so far as may be applied and this reveals that for the purposes of making a application s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... complied with. If that provides for refund, but the application in that behalf is to be made within a specified period, then, that cannot be said to be excessive and arbitrary, far from being unfair, unjust and unreasonable. It cannot be termed illegal as well for the simple reason that subsection (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which enables claiming of refund by making an application itself speaks of one year outer limit. That is never challenged, including in the present proceedings. That the period of one year commences from the payment of the duty. If that is how Section 27 is worded and every duty is included in its ambit and scope, then, an application seeking refund of the same has to abide by it, including the bar of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es tax or value added tax, as the case may be, is equally a condition and further requirement is providing of copies of documents along with refund claim. Else, no refund is admissible. We are of the opinion that it is not possible to guess as to whether the refund application would be held to be nonmaintainable purely on the grounds or for the reasons suggested. If it is made within a period of one year from the date of payment of the additional duty of customs, then, because there is no subsequent sale and the documents evidencing that, as also proof of payment of the sales tax or local taxes are required to be produced, that their production is also mandated in a particular period and within a particular time limit is not something which....