2025 (6) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai- II, is applicability of bar of limitation of one year, incorporated in the said notification by amending notification [notification no.93/2008-Cus 1st August 2008], to the facts in their case. 2. The appellant herein had imported 'embroidery machines', against 57 bills of entry between 27th January 2011 and 9th April 2012, on which 'special additional duty (SAD)' of customs had been discharged under section 3(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and thereafter claim for refund, purportedly eligible in all respects, was preferred vide application dated 23rd April 2018 along with the documents evincing discharge of liability on sale under the relevant taxing statue of Government of Gujarat which was essential qua....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he importer is one year in terms of Notification No. 93/2008(Cus) dated 01.08.2008 which has been issued in terms of section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 without selling the imported goods by the importer within one year of payment of SAD shall be applicable or not ?' was answered thus 'The time limit imposed upon an importer for filing a refund claim of additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with the jurisdictional customs officer before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of said additional duty of customs in terms of the notification dated 01.08.2008 would not be applicable in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2014 (304) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....olychems vs. Commissioner, Customs (Import), New Delhi (ICD TKD)[2023(5) TMI 399-CESTAT NEW DELHI] have followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sony India and held that the limitation of one year would not be applicable. 40. However, contrary views have been expressed by the Tribunal in the following decisions: (i) CC, Hyderabad-Customs vs. Khazana20; 17. 18. 19. 20. 2019 (4)TMI 492-CESTAT HYDERABAD decided on 13.02.2019 (ii) Hariyana International Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai [2019 (4) TMI 142- CESTAT MUMBAI decided on 19.12.2018]; (iii) C.C.-New Delhi (ICD TKD) (Import) vs. Nav Bharat Trading Corporation [2018 (12) TMI 1487 CESTAT NEW DELHI decided on 25.10.2018]; and (iv) C.C. Hyderabad- Customs....