2023 (5) TMI 46

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Authority. The facts in brief relevant for the purpose are that the appellant had imported 9 consignments of fabrics during the period from 23.06.2016 to 24.11.2016 and had paid the customs duty as per the assessment, including SAD. It is on 12.10.2018 that the amount of Rs.7,85,947/-, as was paid as SAD was prayed to be refunded. On examination, the claim was observed to be barred by time. The original adjudicating authority while relying upon the amendment in the aforesaid Notification No.102/2007 vide subsequent Notification No.93/2008 dated 01.08.2008 has rejected the claim vide Order in Original No.2080 dated 28.02.2019 holding the claim to have been filed beyond a period of one year as prescribed under Notification No.93/2008. Since....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....volved in Sony India was prior the Notification in question was got amended. For the subsequent period since Notification No.93 is in existence prescribing a time limit of one year for filing the refund claim of SAD that the limitation has to be followed. Ld. DR has relied upon the following decisions of Tribunal:- 1. C.C. - New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. Indu Exporters- Final Order No. 53156/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal No.C /52435/2018 [DB]. 2. C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. J.G. Impex Pvt. Ltd. - Final Order No.53157/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal No. C/52393/2018 [DB] 3. C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. Nav Bharat Trading Corporation - Final Order No.53154/2018 dated 25.10.2018 in Customs Appeal N....