TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch amount had been deposited under protest during the pendency of the appeal and the petitioner is entitled to refund - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WP(C).No. 10019 of 2016 (B) - - - Dated:- 29-7-2016 - MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FOR THE APPELLANT : ADVS. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS, SRI.PRAKASH.D.SHAH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.B.RAJESH (KOTTAYAM) SRI.PRASAD PARANJAPE FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, S.C J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 and for a direction to the 3rd respondent to forthwith sanction and grant refund of ₹ 1,15,15,214/- made by the petitioner with interest from the date of order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, i.e., 18/11/2002. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon to produce various documents and it was indicated that the documents were required for verifying the unjust enrichment part and for processing the refund claimed. Petitioner made available the copies of the documents and informed that most of the original documents are not available in their file as they were lost during a flood. However, it was mentioned that it was the obligation of the department to refund the amount even without a formal application. Since, nothing was done in the matter during the interregnum, this writ petition is filed seeking the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents inter alia stating that when the Supreme court had directed that the excess duty paid has to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 328] wherein also this Court having considered the claim for refund of the penalty and fine directed the amount to be refunded with 6% interest. 5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the amount had been deposited by the petitioner under protest when the appeal was pending and when the Tribunal passed the order allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner, there is an obligation cast on the department to refund the amount. Learned Single Judge of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Cochin v. Shree Simandar Enterprises [2012 (283) E.L.T.369 (Ker.)] had considered the scope and effect of Sections 129E and 129EE and it was held at paras 6 and 8 as under:- 6. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter of payment of money due, when money is due to citizens from the government. It is the duty of all government officers also to see that the image of the government before the citizens is clean and in accordance with basic principles of fair play. Even otherwise, occasionally, in appropriate cases the officers of the government can be magnanimous also to improve the image of the government before the public. That apart, the circular issued by the Board and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Circular No.275/37/2KCX. 8A dated 2/1/2002, clearly indicates that the amount received under Section 35F has to be given as refund even without a formal application. The provisions under Section 129E is in pari materia wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
