Commissioner Of Central Excise & Central Tax, Mangalore Commissionerate vs Gajanan World Trade India Pvt Ltd
- Court
- Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
C/21762/2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 2
Customs Appeal No. 21762 of 2018
(Virtual Hearing)
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 299/2018 dated 09.08.2018
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.)
The Commissioner of
Customs
New Customs House,
Panambur,
Mangaluru – 575 010.
Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/s. Gajanan
Worldtrade India Pvt.
Ltd.
D. No.14-4-511/43,
Crystal Arc Building,
Balmata Road,
Mangaluru – 575 001.
Respondent(s)
APPEARANCE:
Shri Vikalp Jain, Superintendent (AR) for the Appellant.
Shri Avinash Shanbhogue, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER
(TECHNICAL)
Final Order No. 21296 /2026
DATE OF HEARING: 17.09.2026
DATE OF DECISION: 06.11.2026
PER : R. BHAGYA DEVI
The respondent M/s. Gajanan Worldtrade India Pvt Ltd
filed a refund claim on 01.01.2018 for an amount of
Rs.19,11,229/- for the refund of 4% additional duty of customs
paid by them on imported almonds in shells vide three Bills of
Entry. The original authority rejected the refund claim stating
that claim was beyond the period of one year from the date of
payment of additional duty of customs and the same is barred by
limitation as specified under Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated
Page 1 of 14
C/21762/2018
th
01/08/2008 read with Circular No.16/2008-Cus. dated 13
October 2008. On appeal against this order, the Commission
(Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and held
that they were eligible for refund of SAD under Notification
No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007. Aggrieved by this order,
the Revenue is an appeal before this Bench.
2. The Revenue in their grounds of appeal submitted that the
circular relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) has stated as
follows:
“4.1 In the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007, no
specific time limit has been prescribed for filing a refund application.
Under the circumstances, a doubt has been expressed that whether the
normal time limit of six months prescribed in Section 27 of the Customs
Act, would 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 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 payment of duty, within which the refund could be filed by
any person. It is also clarified that the importers would be entitled to
refund of duties only in respect of quantities for which the prescribed
documents are made available and the claims submitted within the
maximum prescribed time of one year. Unsold stocks would not be
eligible for refunds.”
2.1 Further, it is submitted that, in the instant case, refund
claim amount accrued before the due date of filing of refund
claim and sales were also completed within one year from the
date of payment of additional duty but the claimant had filed
these details before the refund sanctioning authority. From the
dates specified therein, the claimant was required to be file
Page 2 of 14
C/21762/2018
refund claims on or before 22.11.2017; instead, the claim was
filed on 01.01.2018; accordingly, the original authority had
rightly rejected the refund claim on account of time bar.
2.2 Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of
Bombay in the case of CMS Info Systems Ltd. vs. Union of
India: 2017 (349) ELT 236 (Bom.) wherein it was held that
the power to consider refund claim and grant it, if permissible, is
traceable to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it
was impossible to ignore the statutory bar and contained in
subsection one of section 27 at any time. This judgement being
upheld by the Supreme Court, it is further submitted that
Notification No.93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008 has amended
the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 by
prescribing the time limit of one year for filing the refund claim
of SAD; therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was not right in
sanctioning the refund claim which was time barred.
3. Countering the above arguments, the respondent,
submitted that they had filed the refund claim on 01.01.2008
within five months of the last domestic sale on 08.08.2017;
hence, the claim is within the time limit prescribed in the
Notification and all other conditions of the Notifications are met
relying on the following decisions:
• Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New
Delhi: 2014 (304) ELT 660 (Delhi High Court)
• Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Gulati Sales
Corporation: 2018 (360) ELT 277 Delhi High Court
• Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD vs.
Bhimshwari Overseas: 2023 (385) ELT 807 (SC)
• Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import) vs.
Nanak Electronics: 2023 (385) ELT 801 (SC)
4. Heard both sides. The undisputed facts are that the
appellant had filed refund claim on 01.01.2018 in terms of
Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 read with
Notification No. 93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 claiming the
refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid by them. The
Page 3 of 14
C/21762/2018
refund in terms of the above said Notification was to be allowed
only on production of evidence of payment of appropriate sales
tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order notes as
follows:
“15. In the instant case, it is seen from the impugned order that the
appellant has submitted all the relevant documents as required under
notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 and the lower
adjudicating authority in para 9 has also mentioned that the claimant has
sufficiently proved that the duty incidence has not been passed on by
them to any other person. Therefore, rejecting the claim on the sole
ground on delay of refund application is bad in law.
16. Further in view of the various judicial pronouncement (supra), it is
seen that the issue of time limit for filing refund of SAD under Notification
No. 102/ 2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 is no longer res integra and I agree
that the period of limitation cannot start prior to the date of crystallization
to the right of refund and the right to refund is prescribed by the said
notification. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of refund on the sole
ground of limitation is bad and not tenable.”
5. The Revenue relying on the Circular No.6/2008-Cus. dated
28.04.2008 submits that the Circular had stated that ‘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 payment of duty, within which
the refund could be filed by any person.’ But the actual amendment
happened vide Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008
where it amended the Notification No.102/2007 to incorporate
the above time limit of one year from date of payment of SAD.
The relevant Notifications during the disputed period are
reproduced below:
Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14.09.2007
Special CVD — Exemption to all goods when imported for subsequent
sale
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of
the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being
satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby
Page 4 of 14
C/21762/2018
exempts the goods falling within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff
Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India for subsequent sale,
from the whole of the additional duty of customs leviable thereon under
sub-section (5) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act (hereinafter
referred to as the said additional duty).
2. The exemption contained in this notification shall be given effect if
the following conditions are fulfilled:
(a) the importer of the said goods shall pay all duties, including the said
additional duty of customs leviable thereon, as applicable, at the
time of importation of the goods;
(b) the importer, while issuing the invoice for sale of the said goods,
shall specifically indicate in the invoice that in respect of the goods
covered therein, no credit of the additional duty of customs levied
under sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
shall be admissible;
(c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said
additional duty of customs paid on the imported goods with
the jurisdictional customs officer;
(d) the importer shall pay on sale of the said goods, appropriate sales
tax or value added tax, as the case may be;
(e) the importer shall, inter alia, provide copies of the following
documents alongwith the refund claim :
(i) document evidencing payment of the said additional duty;
(ii) invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which
refund of the said additional duty is claimed;
(iii) documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax or value
added tax, as the case may be, by the importer, on sale of such
imported goods.
3. The jurisdictional customs officer shall sanction the refund on
satisfying himself that the conditions referred to in para 2 above, are
fulfilled.
[Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008]
Spl. CVD refund claim to be filed within one year — Amendment
to Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
Page 5 of 14
C/21762/2018
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of
the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, on being
satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes
the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India
in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 102/2007-
Customs, dated the 14th September, 2007 which was published in the
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R. 598 (E), dated the
14th September, 2007, namely :-
In the said notification, in paragraph 2, for sub-paragraph (c), the
following shall be substituted, namely, -
“(c) the importer shall file a claim for refund of the said
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 the said additional
duty of customs;”.
6. Thus, from the above Notifications, it is clear that w.e.f.
from 01.08.2008, time limit of one year was introduced from the
date of payment of additional duty of customs for filing the
refund claim of SAD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated
14.09.2007 read with Notification No. 93/2008 dated
01.08.2008.
7. All the judgments relied upon by the Commissioner
(Appeals) and the appellant are based on the decision of the
Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi: 2014 (304) ELT 660
(Del.) dated 16.04.2014 . The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in
the above case was dealing with refund claim filed prior to
introduction of the time limit vide Notification No.93/2008 dated
01.08.2008. The facts as enumerated in the above order is
reproduced below:
“3. The appellant imported some items in between 1-12-2007 and 5-
12-2007 under 9 Bills of Entry, paid the applicable customs duties by
demand drafts dated. 4-12-2007 and 6-12-2007 and received stamped
TR-6 challans on 14-12-2007, 18-12-2007 and 19-12-2007. Notification
Page 6 of 14
C/21762/2018
93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 (“amending notification”) was then issued
amending Notification No. 102/2007 to prescribe a time period of 1 year
from date of payment for the filing of refund claims by an importer
under the Notification. On 11-12-2008, the appellant filed a refund claim
amounting to Rs. 66,67,480/- before the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs (“the respondent”) for the refund of SADC on the imports in
December 2007 under the Notification No. 102/2007. After hearing the
appellant, the respondent passed an order dated 12-10-2009 allowing
the claim of Rs. 33,49,015/-, on the ground that the refund in respect of
4 Bills of Entry had been filed beyond the period of 1 year stipulated in
the amending notification.
…………This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962,
against the order dated 19-6-2013 [2013 (297) E.L.T. 297 (Tribunal)] of
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”)
dismissing the appellant company’s appeal challenging the denial of
refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., read with Section 27
of Customs Act. The question of law that arises for determination
in this appeal is Can period of limitation for preferring refund
claims, specified in the amending Notification No. 93/2008-
Cus., be made applicable with retrospective effect, in absence
of a limitation period in the original Notification No. 102/2007-
Cus., in respect of goods imported prior to the issue of the
amending notification.”
(Emphasis supplied)
From the above facts, it is seen that the refund rejected
related to the period prior to 01.08.2008 as seen from the facts
reproduced below as set-out in the above order and the question
before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the amended
Notification can be held to be retrospective.
7.1 Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court observed as follows:
“17. 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 1-8-2008 (by notification) became
applicable. There is a body of law that essential legislative policy aspects
Page 7 of 14
C/21762/2018
(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 substantive
rights, such as imposition of penalties and other provisions that adversely
affect statutory rights, the parent enactment must clearly impose such
obligations; subordinate legislation or rules cannot prevail or be made, in
such cases. The imposition of a period of limitation for the first time,
without statutory amendment, through a notification, therefore could not
prevail.
18. For these reasons, this Court holds that the amending notification
must be read down to the extent that it imposes a limitation period. The
question of law framed is therefore, answered in favour of the assessee
and against the Revenue.”
7.2 Thus, the Hon’ble High Court was dealing with the question
whether “ can the period of limitation for preferring refund
claims, specified in the amending Notification No.
93/2008-Cus., be made applicable with retrospective
effect, in absence of a limitation period in the original
Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., in respect of goods
imported prior to the issue of the amending notification”,
which was answered in favour of the assessee.
8. Therefore, the refund claims filed for the period after
01.08.2008 are strictly to be complied with the limitation period
of one year. In the instant case, admittedly, the Bills of Entry
were filed on 25.10.2016, 26.10.2016 and 21.11.2016 after the
introduction of time limit of one year for filing a refund claim.
Admittedly, the 4% of additional duty of customs was paid on
27.10.2016 and 23.11.2016 and the refund claim was submitted
on 01.01.2018 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed
under the above Notification. Therefore, I find that the original
authority has rightly rejected the refund claim on the ground
that they have not satisfied the time limit condition laid down in
the Notification. The reliance placed on various decisions by the
Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the refund claim are irrelevant
since they were based on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court
Page 8 of 14
C/21762/2018
of Delhi for the period prior to 01.08.2008. It is also pertinent to
note that Writ Petition filed by CMS Info Systems Ltd. to quash
the time limit introduced vide Notification No. 93/2008 dated
01.08.2008 was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in
the case of CMS INFO SYSTEMS LTD. Versus UNION OF
INDIA 2017 (349) E.L.T. 236 (Bom.) Writ Petition No. 388 of
2016, decided on 19-12-2016. The Hon’ble High Court held as
follows:
“16. It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If
any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party
is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding
exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but
beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or
promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted. This
composite rule is not stated in any particular judgment in so many words.
In fact, majority of judgments emphasize that exemptions are to be
strictly interpreted while some of them insist that exemptions in fiscal
Statutes are to be liberally interpreted giving an apparent impression that
they are contradictory to each other. But this is only apparent. A close
scrutiny will reveal that there is no real contradiction amongst the
judgments at all. The synthesis of the views is quite clearly that the
general rule is strict interpretation while special rule in the case of
beneficial and promotional exemption is liberal interpretation. The two go
very well with each other because they relate to two different sets of
circumstances.
39. Mr. Patil, appearing before us, draws support from all the
judgments cited and essentially on the reasoning that refund in the
present case could be claimed only after the subsequent sale of the
imported goods. If they had not been sold, the refund could not have
been claimed at all. If the exemption notification grants an exemption in
the manner noted by us, then, it could have been granted only in that
mode and not another. In the present case, the exemption Notification
states that the importer shall file a claim for refund on the additional duty
of customs paid on the imported goods before the expiry of one year
from the date of payment of additional duty of customs. The exemption is
granted from the payment of additional duty. That can be availed of
provided the goods are imported into India for subsequent sale.
However, all the conditions envisage first payment, second a stipulation
Page 9 of 14
C/21762/2018
that when such goods are sold, invoice must indicate that no credit for
additional duty of customs shall be admissible. Thirdly, if at all a refund
claim is to be laid, it must be filed within one year from the date of
payment. Only in these circumstances and if the goods are sold, the
payment of tax as required has to be evidenced as also to its proof
produced would not mean that we can override other conditions.
Pertinently, it is not regarding all the conditions but only with regard to
the limitation that this argument of Mr. Patil is canvassed. Even when the
notification was first issued on 14-9-2007 there may not have been a
stipulation with regard to the period for refund, but the clause was that
the refund claim shall be filed within the Jurisdictional Customs Officer.
The power to consider that refund claim and grant it, if permissible, is
traceable to Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, it was
impossible to ignore the statutory bar and contained in sub-section (1) of
Section 27 at any time”.
Based on the above observations, the Writ Petition was
dismissed. Therefore, from 01.08.2008 onwards when the time
limit was introduced, the appellant had to necessarily to comply
with the conditions laid down in the Notification and had to file
the refund claims within one year from the payment of additional
duty of customs.
9. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ingram Micro
India Ltd/ Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import)-Air
(supra) while dealing with refund claims filed after 01.08.2008
held as follows:
“7.……….We find that it is not disputed that the appellants have filed the
refund claim after one year of payment of duty. The order-in-original
notes the date of filing the refund claim to be 22/01/2009 for 178 Bills of
Entry cleared during the period from 01/10/2007 to 31/10/2007. It is also
noted that the amending Notification No. 93/2008 is dated and came into
effect from 01/08/2008. Hence this is case where the claim has been filed
not only one year after the payment of additional duty but also after the
amendment came into force bringing in a time limit of one year. We have
gone through the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble
Tribunal at Chennai, in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.
(supra), to examine the facts of the said case and come to a conclusion
Page 10 of 14
C/21762/2018
whether the facts of the impugned order are the same as in the said
judgment, for it to be applicable here. The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced below;
“2. The appellants herein had imported goods and paid Special
Additional Duty @ 4% as applicable to the goods. In terms of
Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 read with
Notification No. 93/2008, dated 1-8-2008, the assessees are
entitled to refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid if the
imported goods are thereafter sold by them on payment of VAT
subject to the conditions mentioned in the notification. One of the
conditions mentioned in the notification as applicable during the
relevant time was that the refund claim must be filed within one
year. Undisputedly, the appellants have filed all these refund
claims after the period of one year. Therefore, all the refund
claims were rejected by the original authorities and such
rejections were upheld by the first appellate authority vide the
impugned orders. Hence these appeals.
*
16. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused
the records. The provisions for refund of Customs duty available
under the Customs Act is under Section 27. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that
this section should not apply to refund of SAD because the refund
is as per the notification. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was
dealing with a situation where there was no limitation in the
exemption notifications for filing the refund claim at the time of
import but which was introduced by the time refund claim was
filed. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, on the other hand, was
dealing with a case such as the present one, where the imports
have taken place after the amending notification. The Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay also held that the limitation under Section
27 also applies. We find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
framed the question of law only with respect to retrospective
application of the amendment but also held that the amending
notification must be read down to the extent it imposes a time
limit for filing the refund claim. Evidently, if an importer resells the
goods and files the refund claim within the period, they will be put
to loss as he will be bearing both the burden of SAD and the VAT
which he would pay while selling the goods. The Hon’ble High
Page 11 of 14
C/21762/2018
Court of Bombay on the other hand held that it is not open for the
importer to pick and choose parts of the exemption notification
that suits while ignoring those that don’t. The Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay also held that Special Additional Duty of Customs is
also in the nature of Customs duty and it is not a duty on sale of
goods. It further held that the importer does not have any vested,
let alone absolute right, for refund of the SAD. We also note that
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has considered the judgment of
the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) and differed from it. Further, in the case of Gulati Sales
Corporation [2018 (360) E.L.T. 277 (Del.)] decided by the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi on 7-11-2017, the ratio of Sony India (supra)
was followed even when the imports were made after amendment
to the notification. Nevertheless the undisputed position is that
this is a case of a refund arising out of a conditional notification.
17. To sum up, we find that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has
taken a liberal view on interpreting the exemption notification and
held that since the purpose of availing the SAD is to provide level
playing field between the imported goods and the domestic
goods, when the imported goods are resold on payment of VAT to
the State Government, the exemption notification provides for
refund of SAD. It may or may not be always possible for the
importer to resell the goods and file the refund claim within time
depending on his market conditions. Taking a liberal view, the
Hon’ble High Court held that refund is available without the
limitation of one year indicated in the exemption Notification
102/97 after amendment. On the other hand, the Hon’ble Bombay
High Court has constructed the exemption notification strictly and
held that all conditions including the time limit within which the
refund claim has to be filed must be fulfilled. We also find that
there is no order of the jurisdictional High Court of Madras.
However, the question of strict versus liberal interpretations of the
exemption notifications has now finally been settled by the
judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court
on 30th July, 2018 in the case of Dilip Kumar & Company (supra),
any exemption notification must be strictly interpreted and any
benefit of doubt must go in favour of the Revenue and against the
assessee. Contrary decisions such as those in the case of Sun
Export Corporation v. Collector [1997 (93) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)] have
Page 12 of 14
C/21762/2018
been overruled by the aforesaid Five-Judge Constitutional Bench.
Judicial discipline requires us to follow the judgment of the Apex
Court and interpret the exemption notification strictly as it has
been drafted including the time limit within which refund
applications have to be filed. We find that the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CMS Info System
(supra) is consistent and appropriate, syncs well with the ratio of
Dilip Kumar’s case (supra), which is required to be followed. 18.
Consequently, the refund applications of the importer beyond the
time limit have been correctly rejected by the lower authorities.
The impugned orders rejecting such refund claims are correct in
law and call for no interference. The appeals are rejected and
impugned orders are upheld.
We find that the above judgment pertains to the period after the
amendment of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 by
notification 93/2008 dated 01/08/2008. The time limit in sub para (c) of
para 2 of the amended notification will apply to all refund claims filed
under the notification from the date of amendment. The refund claim in
the present case was also filed after the amendment to Notification
No.102/2007-Cus came into force. Moreover, the importers including the
appellant were made aware of the changes going to brought about in
Notification 102/2007-Cus. by introducing a time limit for filing a refund
claim, vide Boards Circular No.6 /2008-Customs dated 28.4.2008 and the
appellants cannot state to have been taken by surprise by the amending
Notification No. 93/2008 dated 01/08/2008. It has been consistently held
by superior courts of law that there cannot be a blanket right to claim an
exemption and that there is neither a constitutional guarantee nor a
statutory entitlement to refund. 8. The Hon’ble Tribunal in its judgment in
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. has examined both the judgements of the
Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Mumbai in Sony India Pvt Ltd Vs
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (supra) and in CMS Info Systems
Ltd Vs UOI (supra), in detail and found that the judgment in CMS Info
Systems Ltd needs to be followed. The relevant paras of the Hon’ble
Chennai Tribunals judgment have been extracted above. In the
circumstances we do not repeat the discussions and find that the
judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Honda Siel Power
Products Ltd. (supra), will squarely apply to the impugned order. We
concur with the same by upholding the impugned order and answering
the query at para 5(a) above accordingly.
Page 13 of 14
C/21762/2018
11. To sum up, we find that in the absence of specific provision of section
27 being made applicable in Notification No.102/2007-Customs dated
14.9.2007 as amended, the time limit prescribed in this section would not
be automatically applicable to refunds under the said notification. Further
the refund claim in the present case has been filed after the amendment
to Notification No.102/2007-Cus. came into force. Conditions of a
notification should be strictly construed. This being so, as per sub para
(c) of para 2 of the amended notification, which was effective on the date
of the appellant filing the claim, the importer should have filed his claim
before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of the said
additional duty of customs. This has not been complied with and hence
the claim has been correctly rejected by the impugned order.”
10. In view of the above discussions and decisions, the refund
claims, in the instant case, have been rightly rejected by the
original authority. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order
and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
Revenue’s appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 06.11.2026.)
(R. BHAGYA DEVI)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
rv
Page 14 of 14