TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21, titled: Premier Timber and Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. Commissioner Customs Import, which has been disposed of via judgment dated 14.07.2022, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, this appeal is be taken up for disposal at this stage itself. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, 'Tribunal']. 4. As is evident, in the aforementioned judgment i.e. CUSAA 54/2021, the assessee was in appeal whereas in the instant case, the revenue has preferred the appeal. 4.1. The issue which arises in the instant appeal, as in the Premier Timber case, concerns the application of limitation vis-à-vis refund sought qua Special Additional Duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16 rendered by another co-ordinate bench in CUSAA 25/2016, titled Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Wilhelm Textiles India Private Limited. 3. We are told that, insofar as Sony India is concerned, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 26.02.2016 on the ground of delay, keeping the questions of law open. 3.1. It is also the submission of the counsel for the parties that a SLP was preferred in Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. case as well. We are told that the said SLP, which is, numbered as SLP(C) No.1507/2017 has been admitted by the Supreme Court, via order dated 15.04.2019. 3.2. Furthermore, we are informed by the counsel for the parties that no stay has been gran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 (369) ELT 1773 (Tri. Chennai)]. Appellants contention that the order of jurisdictional High Court is binding on the Department and the order of another High Court cannot be relied upon is not relevant as the facts and circumstances under which the order of Sony India or Pee Gee International were delivered were entirely different. The case of Sony India is for the period prior to amendment of notification 102/2007-Cus. Thus this judgment cannot be applied to present case." 6. In our view, the reasoning furnished by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) via order dated 11.05.2020 is flawed, as limitation cannot be prescribed by a notification. 6.1 This aspect of the matter was dealt by this Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. case. The ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be automatically applicable to refunds under the notification. Further, it was also represented that the goods imported may have to be dispatched for sale to different parts of the country and that the importer may find it difficult to dispose of the imported goods and complete the requisite documentation within the normal period of six months. Taking into account various factors, it has been decided to permit importers to file claims under the above exemption upto a period of one year from the date of payment of duty. Necessary change in the notification is being made so as to incorporate a specific provision prescribing maximum time-limit of one year from the date of CUSAA 3/2014 [Sic: Page 12] payment of duty, within which the refund c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the first time, without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore could not prevail." 7. We respectfully agree with the view taken in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, allow the instant appeal. 8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal is set aside as also the Order-in-Appeal dated 11.05.2020 and the Order-in-Original dated 11.02.2019. 9. The respondent will now process the application for refund preferred by the petitioner, as per law, having regard to the decision taken in the present appeal. 10. Needless to add, if the respondent/revenue were to prefer an appeal and have it tagged with the Wilhelm Textiles case (supra), the final view in the ....