9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Respondent No.3 dated 31.5.2016 in OIO No.643/2016 (BACC Refunds), produced at Annexure-A2; c) Issue a Writ of mandamus, or a Writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or directions, directing the Respondents to decide the claims of the Petitioner on merits; d) Issue a writ of Prohibition, or a writ in the nature of Prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Respondents No.1 to 5, their sub-ordinate, servants and agents from giving any effect and/or further effect to and/or acting on the basis of and/or in furtherance of the Impugned Orders dated 31.5.2016 pending the disposal of the writ petition; e) For such further and other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case. 2. In sequence from time to time, this Court had passed detailed interim orders in this case, after hearing both the sides. Such orders were passed by this Court on 20.9.2016, 9.12.2016, 15.12.2016 and 16.12.2016. All the aforesaid orders are quoted below for ready reference: "ORDER DATED 20.9.2016 1. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner-company seeking a manda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s due to the petitioner-assessee, without requiring it to approach the court of law and why the costs of litigation incurred by the petitioner-assessee may not be recovered from such erring officials. 6. The petitioner-company may file a statement of expenses incurred by it for this litigation and the respondent-Department may show-cause before this Court by filing an appropriate statement of objections within a period of four weeks from today. 7. It is made clear that the pendency of this case and passing of this order, however, will not prevent the respondent-Department from making these refunds to the petitioner-company in the meanwhile and report the said fact to the Court on the next date. List after four weeks, as prayed. ORDER DATED 9.12.2016 It is surprising that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) Mr.Ravindra Joshi, has passed an order running into 23 pages refusing to refund the excess customs duty paid by the petitioner-assessee under protest, which became due to be refunded to it in pursuance of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited -versus- Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, decided on 26.03.2015, while holding that thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr.Ravindra Joshi, Deputy Commissioner (Refunds). 2. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - Company informed the Court that by virtue of the orders passed by the Respondent - Deputy Commissioner, (Refunds), both dated 14/12/2016, refund amounts of Rs. 5,82,63,745/- and Rs. 58,02,005/- respectively have not yet been credited to the Bank Account of the petitioner - Company, the details of which have been given to the Respondent's counsel. 3. He also submitted that the tenor of the aforesaid orders dated 14/12/2016 superseding the previous order is not in good taste and intentionally seeks to put the Court's observations as the reason for passing the same rather than correcting their own mistake. 4. A sum of Rs. 5,82,63,745/- and Rs. 58,02,005/- may be credited to the Bank Account of the petitioner-Company forthwith and a report in this regard may be furnished to this Court on 16-12-2016. Put up on 16-12-2016 at 10:30 A.M. The Officers to again remain present before the Court on the next date. ORDER DATED 16.12.2016 Learned counsel for respondents submits that refund amount in question has been credited in the bank account of the petitioner-Company. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment, which binds all the Courts, Tribunals and Authorities in the Country. "27A. Interest on delayed refunds If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub- section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate, not below 5% and not exceeding 30% per annum as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: PROVIDED that where any duty, ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 in respect of an application under sub-section (1) of that section made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 1995 receives the assent of the President, is not refunded within three months from such date, there shall be paid to the applicant interest under this section from the date immediately after three months from such date, till the date of refund of such duty." 5. The respondent Deput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have deposited the cost of litigation as earlier directed by this Court amounting to Rs. 59,800/- with the Registrar General of this Court on 15.12.2016. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient and casual approach in the matter, as the respondent officials cannot be allowed to go around and bypass the binding precedent of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such matters and since the amount in question was paid by the petitioner clearly 'under protest', from their own resources awaiting the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court at that point of time, there was no question of allowing any further enquiry at the end of said Deputy Commissioner and refuse the refund on that ground. The amount actually was refunded after the order dated 14.12.2016 was passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Ravindra Joshi but the tenor of the said order as well as the Affidavit filed in respect of the contempt notices issued by this Court, do not fully satisfy and in inspire any confidence that the respondents, in letter and spirit abide by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and still seek a refuge from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
