TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s similar to the issue raised in CUSAA no.54/2021, 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-&a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms, New Delhi 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del), as also the judgment dated 21.09.2016 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Systems Ltd. [2017 (349) ELT 236 (Bom)] and the decision of Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld apply. In the absence of specific provision of Section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time-limit prescribed in this section would not 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 inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impose such obligations; subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail or be made, in such cases. The CUSAA 3/2014 [ Sic: Page 13] imposition of a period of limitation for 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....