TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein has filed a Claim Application for refund of Additional Duty of Customs, which was paid on the imported goods, but, it was rejected by the adjudicating authority, by its Order-in-Original No. 36028 of 2015, dated 20-3-2015, for non-fulfilment of the condition 2(c) of Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 issued by the Revenue Department. 3. The brief facts of the present case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, issued a Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007, thereby, the Central Government, on being satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public to do so, exempted certain goods falling within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of which refund of the said additional duty is claimed; (iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such imported goods. 5. Subsequent to the above notification, on 1-8-2008, the Revenue Department issued another notification in Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008, thereby, made the following amendments, substituting paragraph 2 clause (c) of the earlier notification dated 14-9-2007 :- "2(c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of the one year from the date of p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the Appellate Tribunal, rejected the appeal on 8-5-2017. As against the same, the Customs Department, the appellant herein, has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court. 9. Assailing the order of the Revenue Department with regard to period of limitation, as prescribed under the Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008, the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant department would submit that the amendment period of one year from the date of payment of additional duty of customs may be extended till the date of imported goods are released. Learned Counsel for the appellant would also try to substantiate the grounds of appeal by stating that the Appellate Tribunal had miserably failed to appreciate the period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional duty of customs paid to the customs department on certain conditions. It could be seen that the period of limitation was not prescribed under the first notification of the Revenue Department dated 14-9-2007 and it was fixed only by way of an amendment notification dated 1-8-2008, enabling an importer to file a claim of refund of the additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods. But, it should have been made before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of additional duty of customs. 13. In the present case, it could be seen that the respondent had filed a Claim Petition on 9-9-2014 for refund of additional duty of customs which was paid on 15-5-2013. In fact, it could be seen from the Order-in-Original dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Revenue Department is stated to be pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India, the contention of the Revenue Department, that they do not accept the decision relied on by the Appellate authority, is not correct. The order of the Appellate authority in dismissing the appeal, is not erroneous and contrary to law. 15(a). It is not in dispute that though the duty was paid on 15-5-2013, on which day, only 90% of the goods were released and however, the remaining 10% of the goods were released only on 4-6-2014. If the Notification No. 102 of 2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 is to be strictly applied, then the date on which the remaining 10% of goods released could o....