TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Joshi, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, has fairly informed us that the issue stands covered by a judgement dated 16.04.2014 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del), as also by another judgment dated 21.09.2016, rendered by another coordinate bench of this Court in CUSAA No.25/2016, titled Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. 3. We are informed, that these decisions were followed by another coordinate bench [comprising one of us i.e., Rajiv Shakdher J.,] in the matter of Commissioner of Customs v. S.R. Traders. This judgment was passed in CUSAA No.36/2021 and is dated 19.04.2022. 4. The relevant po....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the authorities below have sought to distinguish the judgment rendered by this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. by furnishing the following reasons, in the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.05.2020: "5.4 Regarding the case laws cited by the Appellant, I find that Pee Gee International case [2016 (343) ELT 72(Del.)] and Siya Paper Mart Pvt. Ltd. cases refer to the Sony India decision. I find that the period involved in the Sony India case was from 01.12.2007 to 05.12.2007. In the instant case, the period involved is of 2016. It is to be noted that the Notification No. 102/2007Cus dated 14.09.2007 was amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 by which the condition of filing refund claim within one year was inserted In the princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... That provision has the effect of shifting the date from which the refund claim is to be reckoned. All that can be inferred from the term "so far as may be" would be that specific provisions relating to the mechanism applicable for refund, in the Customs Act, applied; not the period CUSAA 3/2014 Page 11 of limitation. The Customs authorities had never understood Section 27(1) as to mean that a one year period of limitation was applicable. Audioplus (supra) and United Chemicals Industries (supra) are both testimony to this. It is the circulars/notifications of 2008 and No. 16/2009 which for the first time harped on the one year period of limitation. Circular No 6/2008 dated 28.4.2008 issued by the CBEC stated that: "4. Time-Limit: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for refunds." Notification No 93/2008 dated 01.8.2008 was issued prescribing the period of limitation as one year from the date of payment of additional duty of Customs. 17. Plainly, therefore, Section 27 was understood as not applying to SAD cases, even though it was in the statute book for many years. Yet, with the introduction of the circular and then the notification (No. 93), the Customs authorities started insisting that such limitation period which was prescribed with effect from 01.08.2008 (by notification) became applicable. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects (period of limitation being one such aspect) cannot be formulated or prescribed by subordinate legislation. Khemka and Co. (Ag....