TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arantee was discharged by the Department, for reasons best known to them - No explanation is offered by the Revenue as to what were the circumstances that occasioned the delay of more than eight years. The Appellant has been unfairly deprived of the amount of ₹ 4,07,245/- from 2007 onwards till the order of the learned Single Judge on 22.7.2015 directing the grant of refund. The delay in granting refund was inordinate, unjustified and wholly unacceptable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Writ Appeal No.64 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 16-12-2016 - Mr. Huluvadi G. Ramesh And Dr. Anita Sumanth, JJ. For appellant :: Mr. Vignesh Venkat For respondent :: Mr. V. Sundareswaran JUDGMENT Dr. Anita Sumanth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rantee be discharged. However, it was only on 22.03.2007 that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs intimated the Manager, M/s. Indusind Bank Limited, that the export obligation had been duly discharged and that the bank guarantee may be treated as cancelled. Thereafter, the assessee sought refund of the amount of ₹ 4,07,245/-(Rupees Four lakhs Seven thousand two hundred and forty five only) realised from the Bank Guarantee. (iii) On 20.08.2007, it appears that due to non-representation of the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the Appellant's request for refund, holding that the application for refund was filed beyond the period of six months, as stipulated in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act. An appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e available to the appellant, on 21.05.2014. The order, while setting the assessee ex-parte, merely confirms the order of the Assessing Authority on merits holding that the claim had been filed beyond the expiry of a period of six months stipulated in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. It is strange that the Appellate Authority does not take into consideration the order of this Court in the case of M/s. Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., (cited supra), when the same was passed as early in July 2007 itself and was very much within the domain of knowledge of the Customs Department. In fact, the decision in the case of Jraj Exports was noticed and applied on 14.01.2008 by an assessing Officer, while processing the refund application of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the interest in the light of M/s. Areva T D India Limited s case(Commissioner of Customs and another Vs. M/s. Areva T D India Limited (passed in W.A.No.299 of 2013 dated 21-04-2014).' It is against this conclusion that the assessee is before us in this appeal. 6. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. 7. The Revenue would rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. Areva T D India Limited (W.A.No.299 of 2013 dated 21-04-2014) whereas the petitioner would place reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sandvik Asia Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 244A to the Act which provides for interest on refunds under various contingencies. We clarify that it is only that interest provided for under the statute which may be claimed by an assessee from the Revenue and no other interest on such statutory interest.' The Supreme Court has made out a distinction between a claim of interest and the grant of compensation for inordinate delay in issuance of refund, concluding that while no interest is payable on interest, a claim of compensation for undue delay in effecting refund may be considered, if found justified on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. 9. We are of the view that the claim preferred by the assessee is really not one of the interest, but, in the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee justifying the grant of compensation. 10. The sequence of dates and events detailed above would show that the assessee had made a request for release of Bank Guarantee as early as in 2003 after obtaining the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, confirming the position that the export obligation has been duly complied with. However, it is only on 22.3.2007 that the Bank Guarantee was discharged by the Department, for reasons best known to them. The claim for refund was rejected by both the original authority as well as appellate authorities on the ground that the application was barred by time. This was in clear contravention of the law laid down by this Court to the contrary in the case of Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., a decision that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
