TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s open for the Department to pursue its remedies, but in facts of the present case, must release the refund, if otherwise payable in law, subject to outcome of such proceedings. The petitioner’s refund applications shall be decided latest by 31-12-2017 - petition disposed off. - Special Civil Application No. 21683 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2017 - Akil Kureshi and A.Y. Kogje, JJ. Nanavati Associates, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Ms. Nisha Thakore, AGP, S/Shri Ankit Shah and DevangVyas, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner s request for refund of duty paid under protest has got caught in cross fire between two Central Government departments. In the process, despite having succeeded before this Court a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms, Surat on 6/7-9-2010 that :- Since, M/s. Indofil Chemicals Company, A SEZ unit had paid the said amount against the Export duty under heading of 0037 (Customs Duties) in accounting Collectorate-Surat-I, Customs Division, which falls under the jurisdiction of Surat-I Commissionerate, you are therefore, requested to take necessary action in the matter on priority basis as the case is of time bound nature and arises out of the High Court order. Refund Application along with the documents and copy of the Court order is enclosed herewith for disposal at your end please. 2.2 On 23-9-2010, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Surat wrote to the Deputy Commissioner, SEZ, Dahej and conveyed as under :- 2. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Customs authorities stated that the petitioner s refund applications shall be processed and decided in accordance with law. Shri Raval for SEZ authorities, however, submitted that the Department has preferred review petitions before the Supreme Court against dismissal of the SLP and such petitions are pending. 4. Mere filing and pendency of the review petitions would not enable the Department to withhold the refund claims of the petitioner, whose writ petition was allowed in the year 2009 and SLP was dismissed in the year 2010. The Department cannot consider such belated development as automatic implementation of the declaration [laid down] by the High Court. It is always open for the Department to pursue its remedies, but in facts of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
