Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesRelief To Importers : Time Limit Not Applicable for Refund of Special...

Relief To Importers : Time Limit Not Applicable for Refund of Special Additional Duty: CESTAT

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

In a major relief for importers, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has ruled that the one-year limitation period prescribed for filing refund claims of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007, will not apply. 

The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member), set aside the orders of both the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals), New Delhi, which had earlier denied the refund of Rs. 1,91,363. The refund had been claimed for SAD paid on imported goods under a bill of entry dated July 2, 2016.

The appellant/assessee had paid the SAD on July 11, 2016, and filed a refund claim on July 26, 2018. Customs authorities rejected the claim citing the one-year limitation period under the said notification, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant challenged the rejection, arguing that the limitation period should begin from the date of sale of the goods, not the date of duty payment.

The CESTAT observed that the Delhi High Court in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2014 (304) ELT 660 (Del.)] had categorically held that the limitation period of one year cannot be imposed for refund claims under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The High Court clarified that the right to claim a refund arises only after the sale of goods, as the importer must first produce documents evidencing payment of VAT or sales tax.

Quoting the Sony India judgment, the Tribunal reiterated that the limitation period cannot start before the right to refund accrues. It further noted that Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with refund claims, does not apply to refunds of SAD since the duty’s purpose is to counterbalance VAT/sales tax on subsequent sale.

Case Details

Case Title: M/s Arjun Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.  Versus Commissioner of Customs

Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50095 of 2025

Date:  09/10/2025

Counsel For  Appellant: Jitin Singhal, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Rohit Issar, Authorized Representative

Read More: Madras High Court Bans Animal Sacrifice at Thiruparankundram Hill

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...

GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected Without Addressing Taxpayer’s Grounds: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has set aside an appellate order concerning cancellation of GST...

More like this

No Mini-Trial at Cognizance Stage: Directors’ Claim of Cooperation Must Be Examined During Trial

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against two individuals facing...

Missing Seized Records Must Be Considered While Testing ITC Claim; Duplicate GST Demands Ordered Corrected: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the tax department’s inability to furnish seized...

Capital Addition Can’t Be Taxed on Assumptions in Reassessment: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has upheld the deletion of a ₹2.73 crore addition made...