2022 (5) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. We have heard learned Departmental Representative for appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent filed a refund claim of Rs. 47,451/- seeking refund of the special additional duty paid by it under Notification No. 102/2007 CBIC dated 14.09.2007. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund on the ground that the application for refund was time barred as it was filed after one year which was the time limit specified in the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008 dated 01.08.2008. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the limitation prescribed by amending notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... limitation under Notification No. 93/2008-CUS applies. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and asserts that there is no infirmity in it. 6. We have considered the submissions on both sides and we find that the impugned order was passed relying on the judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court. Revenue's submission is that the case of Sony India pertained to situations where goods were imported prior to issue of Notification No. 93/2008-CUS but were sold thereafter. According to the Revenue, in that particular context, Delhi High Court has held that the limitation of time for filing refund claim imposed by the Notification No 93/2008-CUS does not apply. We reproduce below paragraphs 1 and 18 of the j....