2018 (11) TMI 934

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P.V. Subba Rao. 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS-000-APP- 085-16-17 dated 04.04.2015. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported goods under 8 bills of entry and paid Customs Duty including SAD (Special Additional Duty). The appellants have submitted a claim for refund of SAD on 29.12.2014 as per the Notifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plies squarely to the present case. He, therefore, prayed that their appeal may be allowed. 4. Learned departmental representative draws the attention of the Bench to the question of law framed in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd which was "can the period of limitation for preferring refund claims specified in the amending Notification No. 93/2008-CUS be made applicable with retrospective effect,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t be within the framework of the statute and admissible in the terms thereof. Therefore, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has upheld the limitation of time provided in Notification No. 102/2007-CUS for claiming refund of SAD. He also emphasised the fact that the exemption notification in this case is an exception to the general rule and it should be strictly construed and in case of any doubt shou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the limitation of one year for refund of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-CUS applies or not. I find that the question framed in the case of Sony India Pvt Ltd by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is whether the limitation introduced vide Notification No. 93/2008 have a retrospective effect or otherwise, although the final order of the judgment was to the effect that the Notification No. 93/20....