TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund - Petition allowed. - W.P.No.30212 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2019 - Mrs. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Raveekumar For the Respondent : Mr.S.R.Sundar, Standing Counsel ORDER The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner laying challenge to the Order in Original No.48134/16 Job No.47133/16, dated 01.07.2016, and consequently seeking a direction to the respondent to refund ₹ 53,583/- and also pay interest at the rate of 30% from 22.05.2006 to 29.12.2014 on ₹ 4,13,115/-. 2. The petitioner is involved in the business of importing fruit juice. During the relevant period, it filed three Bills of Entry, namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .07.2015 for a sum of ₹ 3,59,531/-. In fact, it is stated by the petitioner that the respondent lost the papers and it is the petitioner, who had once again submitted the papers for refund. The petitioner learnt that there was a clerical error in placing the note for refund of the bills, as one bill for a sum of ₹ 53,583/- was not included in the note and the same has to be issued separately. 6. According to the petitioner, there was an inordinate delay in the refund of the amount. Hence, relying Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, the petitioner sought for refund of the balance amount along with interest on the entire refund amount sanctioned by the authority from the expiry of three months from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 27A of the Act, the application shall be deemed to have been received on the date on which a complete application, as acknowledged by the Proper Office, has been made. 14. It is stated that in this case, the application for refund has become complete only on receipt of the confirmation/quantification of duty payable/refundable to the importer by the Assessing Group-1 in the O-in-O No.5170/2006 dated 22.05.2006. Therefore, the claim was processed within the stipulated time of three months from the date of completion of the claim and hence question of payment of interest does not arise. 9. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from such date, till the date of refund of such duty. Explanation. - Where any order of refund is made by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any court against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs under sub-section (2) of section 27, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under that sub-section for the purposes of this section. 11. According to the petitioner, during the relevant period of trade the goods imported were exempted from its Trade Import Duty, which is the CVD under Notification No.6/2002 Central Excise S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.2. A Division Bench of this Court in Shakun Overseas Limited rep. by its Managing Director V. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and others, (2013) 297 ELT 14, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited V. Union of India, (2011) 10 SCC 292, in a similar claim, held as follows : 18. Thus, the Apex Court held that the liability of the Revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act commenced from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. The decision of the Apex Court on Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine and penalty with the Department under protest. Ultimately the issue was decided in favour of the respondents holding that no such duty, fine and penalty was paid. The question of refund of the said amount was thereafter raised and in the impugned order the Tribunal had directed the Commissioner to pay interest to the respondents @ 12% on the amount of refund. 3. The only grievance which is made by the Department in these appeals is that an issue to pay interest only on the amount of duty and not on fine and penalty. We find force in the submission of the appellants. These appeals are accordingly partly allowed holding that interest @ 12% shall be paid to the respondents on the amount of duty and not on fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
