9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2019 (9) TMI 969 - HC - CustomsRefund Claim. - Seeking Direction to be issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) ICD to decide the claim of the petitioner one way or the other within a time frame - HELD THAT - Upon asking of the Court Mr. Sourabh Goyal Sr. Standing Counsel for Union of India has sought instructions from the department concerned and submits that the application for refund will be decided within the statutory period of three months and in any case by 30.9.2019. Application disposed off.
Issues:
Claim for refund of differential duty paid on imported goods. Analysis: The petitioner, a private company engaged in importing goods, filed a refund application before the Customs Department claiming a refund of the differential duty paid due to a re-assessment order passed by the proper Officer under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had accepted the declared value of the imported fabric consignments from China. The petitioner sought a direction for the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) to decide on the refund claim within a specified timeframe. The Sr. Standing Counsel for Union of India assured the Court that the application for refund would be decided within the statutory period of three months or by a specific date. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition as the limited prayer for a decision on the refund claim was addressed by the Revenue's commitment to decide within the stipulated time frame. This judgment primarily deals with a claim for a refund of differential duty paid on imported goods by a private company. The petitioner's request for a direction to the Customs Department for a decision on the refund application within a specific timeframe was addressed by the assurance given by the Sr. Standing Counsel for Union of India that the application would be decided within the statutory period or by a specified date. The Court disposed of the matter based on the commitment made by the Revenue to decide on the refund claim within the stipulated time frame.
|
