2018 (8) TMI 1352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mr. Samar Jain and Mr. Surigya Awasthy, Advocates appear for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had imported Set Top Boxes (STB) from its foreign supplier; the items attracted Special Additional Duty (SAD), which was paid for goods covered under it. The petitioner claimed exemption from payment of SAD, in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. The refund claim made in terms of the Notification was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) on 30.11.2010. The petitioner appealed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which allowed its claim. In these circumstances, when the petitioner approached the second respondent-the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) seeking refu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue is correct inasmuch as the petitioner's request for interest - as well as the initial refund amount was made freshly in April, 2017. It was submitted that however, since interest was claimed for the first time, the period of limitation applicable to refund sought under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 applied. 6. This Court in Micromax Informatics Limited (supra), after noticing the previous ruling in RISO held that there was no period for refund of SAD, so could not be circumscribed by any period of limitation prescribed by mere executive instructions such as in the case of Circular. 7. The reasoning of this Court in Micromax Informatics Limtied is found in paras 17 to 22 of the judgment. The operative portion of the....