TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing time barred, as the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) is likely to take a stand that the application should have been filed for refund within one year from the date of payment of duty. Bond furnished by appellant shall stand cancelled - Bank guarantee less administrative charges to be refunded - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos. 28654 & 28655 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, SPC ORDER Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, learned Senior Panel Counsel accepts notice for the respondent. Heard both. By consent, the writ petitions are taken up for joint disposal. 2. The petitioner in these writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (EPCG) dated 25.4.2011 and directed to maintain status quo till the petitioner produces export obligation discharge certificate (EODC). It was further observed by the Appellate Authority that once the petitioner produces the EODC and if it is found in order, the amount recovered by encashing the bank guarantee should be refunded to the petitioner as per law. Ultimately, the petitioner was able to secure the EODC dated 30.9.2014. 5. Immediately, the petitioner made a request to the respondent to effect refund by a representation dated 06.11.2014. This was followed by two communications sent through their counsel. However, for nearly three years, nothing had happened and by a communication dated 31.7.2017, the Assistant Commissioner of Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the petitioner should be relegated to the authority concerned to pursue the application for refund. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perusing the materials on record, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the stand taken by the respondent in directing the petitioner to approach the Authority concerned is wholly unsustainable. This conclusion is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Nizamabad Agro Private Limited, in which, the relevant portions read as under : 4. The question would be as to whether the petitioner has to be directed to approach the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) or a direction to be issued to the first respondent. 5. The Hon'ble Division Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) Vs. M/s.Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., 2007 (3) TNLJ 532, in which one of us is a party, has held in favour of the importer. In that decision the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. Vs. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1994 (2) SCC 546 has been taken in aid.' Therefore, the petitioner need not be called upon to approach the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) and the first respondent himself can consider the petitioner's claim as the first respondent has cancelled the bond and bank guarantee on the petitioner producing the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
