9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It has been stated that the petitioner had imported certain goods under two EPCG licences, bearing reference Nos.P/CG/2131057 and P/CG/2132894, dated 27.8.1993 and 19.4.1994, respectively. The goods had been imported subject to certain export obligations to be fulfilled within the prescribed time limit. However, the petitioner had failed to submit the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, within the prescribed time limit. Hence, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, had enforced the bank guarantees for a total amount of Rs.9,60,000/-, furnished by the petitioner. The Joint Director General of Foreign Trade had instructed the Banks to send the said amount to the Customs Department, Chennai., Accordingly, two demand draf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Refunds and had held that the time limit of six months would not apply for the grant of refund pertaining to the encashment of a bank guarantee. 5. It has been further stated that the first respondent had preferred an appeal challenging the order, dated 8.2.2006, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Apellate Tribunal, South Zone Branch, at Chennai. The said Tribunal, vide its Final Order No.748 of 2006, dated 18.8.2006, dismissed the appeal filed by the Department, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, holding that the time limit of six months would not apply for making a claim for the refund of the amount pertaining to the encashment of a ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any interest payable under Section 27A of the said Act. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it has been stated that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, in his order, dated 8.2.2006, had held that the bank guarantee is not equivalent to the payment of excise duty and therefore, Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, is not applicable to the present case. The decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai, had been confirmed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, at Chennai. While so, the petitioner has ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be payable on the basis of equity. 11. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent is liable to pay the interest for the belated refund of the amount of Rs.6,60,000/-, to the petitioner, at the rate of 9% per annum, for the period from December, 2004 to 26th of August, 2008. Even though the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port), Chennai, had passed an order, on 14.7.2005, in Order-in-Original No.3997 of 2005, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for the refund of the sum of Rs.6,60,000/-, collected by the customs department, through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
