2026 (8) TMI 1083

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....facts of the present case that the appellant is engaged in the business of import and trading of various plastics and textile products; in the years 2012-2014, the appellant filed the Bills of Entry for clearance of imported goods. The Assessing Authority rejected the appellant's declared value in Bill of Entry No. 93 dated 18.6.2012, Bill of Entry No. 9482688 dated 05.03.2013 along with 12 other Bills of Entry and re-determined the values under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Aggrieved by the said assessment, the appellant challenged the assessed bills of entry before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ludhiana on various grounds and the Learned Appellate Authority, vide Order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dated 14.02.2024. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law; and binding judicial precedents. 4.1 He further submits that the rejection of the refund only on the ground of limitation by resorting to Notification No. 93/2008-C dated 01.08.2008 is not sustainable in law. He further submits that in the earlier Notification No. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007, there was no period of limitation; by Circular No.6/2008-Customs, an amending notification providing for one-year period from the date of payment of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 509 (Bom.) [04.10.2017.]. He further submits that the limitation period prescribed in the Notification has to be construed strictly and the limitation of one year has not been complied with and therefore, the refund has rightly been rejected. He further submits that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable in the present case and is distinguishable. 6. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record and the judgments relied upon by both the parties. I find that though the Notification No. 102/2007Customs dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-C dated 01.08.2008 prescri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bove case has observed as under:- "16. 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 18-2008 (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. (Agencies) Private Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (1975) 35 STC 571 and other decisions are authority on the question that in matters which deal with su....