ORDER M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act), challenges the order dated 15th June, 2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal) [2015 (330) E.L.T. 414 (Tri.-Mumbai]. 2. This appeal was admitted on 23rd August, 2017 along with Customs Appeal No. 23 of 2016 [2018 (359) E.L.T. 509 (Bom.)] (Commissioner of Customs NS-II v. DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd.) on the following identical questions of law :- "(a) Whether the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2014 (304) E.L.T. 660 (Del.) can be said to be binding precedent in the light of the judgment and other order dated 19th December, 2016 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 338 of 2016 [2017 (349) E.L.T. 236 (Bom.)] - M/s. CMS Info Systems Limited v. Union of India and Others. (b) Whether the impugned Judgments of the Appellate Tribunal are perverse as the Appellate Tribunal ignored that the demands subject matter of the Appeals were from the year 2010 onwards". 3. At the time of admission, both these appeals were posted for final disposal on 3rd October, 2017. In fact, on 4th October, 2017, this Court by a speaking order, disposed of Customs Appeal No. 23 of 2016 [2018 (359) E.L.T. 509 (Bom.)] (The Commissioner of Customs v. DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd.,) by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the Tribunal. This by following the decision of this Court in CMS Info Systems Ltd. v. U.O.I. (Writ Petition No. 338 of 2016). 4. Today, when the matter was called out, none appears for the Respondent though office report indicates that Respondent had been served on 12th October, 2017. 5. The impugned order dated 15th June, 2015 of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent''s appeal by holding that refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs, is not hit by limitation provided in Notification No. 102 of 2007 as amended by Notification No. 93 of 2008. This, by following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sony (I) Pvt. Ltd., (supra). The impugned order dated 15th June, 2015 of the Tribunal allowed the Respondent''s appeal by holding that refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs, is not hit by limitation provided in Notification No. 102 of 2007 as amended by Notification No. 93 of 2008. This, by following the decision of the Delhi High Court in Sony (I) Pvt. Ltd., (supra). We find that the facts and the law applicable in this case are identical to the one in Customs Appeal No. 23 of 2016 [2018 (359) E.L.T. 509 (Bom.)] (Commissioner of Customs v. DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd.,) -namely - whether the refund application for Special Additional Duty made by the Appellant for the period post amendment to Notification No. 102 of 2007 by Notification No. 93 of 2008, dated 1st August, 2008, providing for the period of one year of limitation for refund of additional duty of customs from the date of payment applies or not. This issue was subject matter of consideration by this Court in DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 6. This Court, by an order dated 4th October, 2017, set aside the order of the Tribunal in the case of DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in the facts situation which are identical. It held that the Delhi High Court decision in case of Sony India Pvt. Ltd., (supra) will not apply as it concerned itself with import of goods prior to the amendment of Notification No. 102 of 2007 as amended by Notification No. 93 of 2008. Besides, the issue also stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the decision of this Court in CMS Info Systems Ltd. (supra). Therefore, for the reasons indicated in our order dated 4th October, 2017, we set aside the impugned order dated 15th June, 2015 of the Tribunal. We hold that subsequent to the amendment to Notification No. 102 of 2007 by Notification No. 93/ 2008, a refund claim for Special Additional Duty, cannot be granted, if not made within one year of payment. 7. Therefore, the above, substantial questions of law are answered as under :- (i) Question (a) In the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the Respondent-Assessee; (ii) Question (b) :- In the affirmative i.e. in favour the Revenue and against the Respondent-Assessee. 8. Accordingly, Appeal allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.