TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 636
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary The issue involved in this Appeal is, whether the appellant have committed any illegality in filing the two claims for refund of SAD under Notification No.102/07/CUS, with respect to two separate Bills of Entry, within the same calendar month. 2. The brief facts of the case are:- 2.1 The appellant filed two refund claim for Rs. 6,82,852/- & 52,95,352/- in respe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic Notice No. 10.2013 dated 01.07.2013, issued by the Commissioner of Customs I & G, New Customs House, New Delhi, importer can file only one refund claim in a month, for refund of SAD. 4. The rejection of refund was upheld by Commissioner (Appeal). 5. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel stated that the provisions and the instructions as per the CBEC circular N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive Commissionerate." 6. The Ld. Counsel further relied on the ruling of this Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs Cochin vs. KVN Impex Pvt Ltd 2016(339)ELT/117 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, Revenue was before this Tribunal on the ground that the first appellant Authority have erred in sanctioning refund claims and setting aside the Order-in-Original. In view of the circular No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see. I am of the view that if a circular is beyond the provision of the Notification, the circular cannot be binding, as there is no estoppels against a statue. So the Departmental circular contrary to statutory provision has no legal existence. I find that when the notification itself does not provide for any such condition, the Revenue cannot impose such a limitation which will have no statutory....