TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/673/2011-Mum - Final Order No. A/1277/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 4-8-2014 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri Vinay S. Sejpal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri J.R. Sharma, Supdt. (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant M/s. Mehta Flex Pvt. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 147/MCH/ADC/Cont. Cell/2011, dated 16-6-2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-I. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under :- (i) Appellant M/s. Mehta Flex Pvt. Ltd. had imported machinery under project import vide Bill of entry No. 655769, dated 8-3-2006. It was assessed provisionally afte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have been returned within three months i.e. by 20-10-2006. Inspite of finalisation of assessment and cancellation of Bond on 30-11-2006 they were granted refund of the cash security amount vide Cheque No. 372595, dated 21-1-2008. However no interest was paid for delay in granting refund of cash security deposit on finalization of assessment from 20-10-2006 to 21-1-2008. The Dept. vide letter dated 7-3-2011 informed that the delay was at the preaudit stage, when it was pointed out that doctrine of unjust enrichment was applicable in case of cash security deposit. The importer was requested to submit relevant documents. The appellants vide their letter dated 27-8-2007 furnished clarification from the Chartered Accountant that the security ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refund was allowable for the admitted period of delay on the ground as recorded in paras 6 7 of the Order-in-Appeal are as under :- 6. It is observed that only vide letter dated 27-8-2007, the appellants had submitted suitable clarification on how their refund claim is not hit by the mischief of Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment. Therefore, the receipt date of this letter would be the relevant date for reckoning the time limit for issuance of refund in accordance with the instructions of the Board. As the refund cheque has been issued on 21-1-2008, there is not much delay beyond the three months prescribed by the Board. 7. It is further observed that the refund pertains to the period from July 2006 till 21-1-2008. It is also observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. ITC. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that payment of interest on such delayed refund exceeding 3 months have to given @ 12% per annum commencing from 3 months after final disposal of the dispute, interest has to be allowed. Thus prays for allowing the appeal. 5. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the reasons assigned in the impugned order for denying refund are misconceived and wrong. The learned appellate authority has misconceived the provisions under Section 27A of the Customs Act. The issue of refund in the facts and circumstances is covered on all four [corners] by Ruling of the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
