2016 (6) TMI 817 - HC - Customs

Claim of refund in cash - whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount, claimed by them, in cash, as the reward scheme scrips has been withdrawn - violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted to them - Held that - It is not in dispute that the refund applications, which were filed on 13.1.2010, were not taken for disposal for nearly four years, when the Board had issued circular, directing all the Chief Commissioner of Customs to ensure that all pending applications for refund of 4% SAD paid through DEPB/rewards scrips should be disposed of by 30.06.2013, and report should be sent by the Chief Commissioner of Customs to the Board by 04.07.2013. The petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity to place all contentions before the second respondent, viz., the Original Authority, with regard to three Bills of Entry, dated 06.03.2009, 11.02.2009 and 07.01.2009, for which, refund applications were filed on 13.01.2010. - Revenue directed to pass a reasoned order within 3 months.

Summary

Issues involved:
Entitlement to refund of amount claimed in cash under a reward scheme scrips withdrawal.

Analysis:
1. The Writ Petition before the High Court of Madras involved the consideration of the petitioner's entitlement to a refund of the amount claimed in cash as the reward scheme scrips had been withdrawn.

2. The petitioner had filed Bills of Entry for the import of Panasonic Facsimile Machines, paid additional duty, and subsequently filed applications for a refund of the duty paid. The issue arose as the second respondent did not grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, leading to a plea of violation of natural justice.

3. The second respondent determined that the petitioner availed benefits under a specific notification and rejected two refund applications as time-barred. The petitioner then appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) contending they did not avail of the mentioned benefits and that the delay in decision-making should not prejudice their case.

4. The Commissioner of Appeals held that the petitioner could not avail benefits under two notifications and rejected the claim. The petitioner argued they did not seek double benefits and were legally entitled to a refund, emphasizing they were traders, not manufacturers.

5. The High Court observed that the delay in processing the refund applications was significant and directed the matter to be reconsidered by the second respondent. The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the case for fresh consideration within three months, emphasizing the need for a personal hearing and a reasoned decision in accordance with the law.