Case Law Details
CC, Hyderabad- Customs Vs Surya Telecom Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Hyderabad)
As a creation of law, the Tribunal cannot go beyond the law itself. The validity of the Act, Rules, Regulations and Notifications cannot be questioned or modified by the Tribunal. Only the High Courts and Supreme Court which examine the constitutionality of the laws can do so. Unless the notification is amended or modified by a judicial pronouncement of the High Court having jurisdiction over this Bench or of the Supreme Court, the Tribunal is bound to follow the notification as it stands.
In this case not only is there no judgment of the jurisdictional High Court but there are two conflicting judgments of two different High Courts. Under these circumstances, the proper course of action for me is to follow the notification as it stands as was done by my brother in the Final Order No.30705/2017 in the case of Sree Krishna Enterprises on the same issue.
In conclusion, I find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that period of limitation under Notification No.102/2007-CUS does not apply to SAD refunds, as the refund claims were filed subsequent to the amendment to this Notification vide 93/2008-CUS as opposed to the case of Sony India which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi examining the retrospective applicability of the amending notification.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
