TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as prayed for by the petitioners is liable to issue. In the present case, the petitioners made deposits in pursuance of express directions issued by the DGFT simply because there was some delay on the part of the petitioners in complying with the export obligation. Thereafter, such amounts were appropriated by the respondents on basis of orders that the petitioners had breached the terms and conditions of the Advance Licenses under Notification No. 204 of 1992. Such orders were ultimately set aside after it was found that the petitioners had committed no breaches. Accordingly, the respondents were duty bound to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioners and sanction for such refund has already been granted. Petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 14045 OF 2018 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA, AND M.S. SONAK, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah a/w. Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal for the Petitioners. Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr. Ram Ochani for the Respondents. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER M.S. SONAK,J.) 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] Rule. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 10,35,393/ Total ₹ 33,89,799/ b] Towards Advance Licence No. 2073306 Challan No./Date Amount (Rs) Duty 3015/February 7, 1997 ₹ 42,75,906/ Interest 1808/February 7, 1997 ₹ 15,39,073/ Total ₹ 58,14,797/ (iv) The Customs Authorities at Mumbai ultimately disputed the exports in respect of some of the shipping bills. The petitioners, therefore, instituted Writ Petition No. 163 of 2001 in this Court. The petition was disposed of by directing the Customs Authorities to afford hearing to the petitioners and only then carry out the work of auditing/logging of DEEC Book; (v) Finally, Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vide order dated 28th March 2001, held that the petitioners had violated the conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8269 of 2017 and the department filed appeal to challenge the aforesaid order dated 6th September 2016. Thereupon, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs sanctioned refund of ₹ 58,74,279/and ₹ 33,90,345/to the petitioners, however, without any interest. This was by order dated 3rd August 2017; (xiii) The petitioners, instituted Writ Petition No. 10755 of 2017 challenging the order dated 3rd August 2017 to the extent it had failed to make any provision for interest; (xiv) This Court, vide order dated 9th October 2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the department against the order dated 6th September 2016 and permitted the petitioners to withdraw the earlier Writ Petition No. 8269 of 2017. By order dated 7th September 2018, this Court, directed the proper Officer to consider the claim of the petitioners for interest and to pass an order within six weeks. Based upon this direction, the petitioners withdrew Writ Petition No. 10755 of 2017; (xv) By order dated 12th October 2018, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent No.6) sanctioned interest of ₹ 3,64,654/at the rate of 6% per annum for period 5th December 2016 to 3rd August 2017. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia 48 S.T.R. 17 (Bom), Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India 293 E.L.T. 523 (Guj). On such basis, Mr. Walve submits that this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7] The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8] According to us, the issue involved in this petition is entirely covered by the decision of Apex Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (supra). In the context of provisions of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the Apex Court has held that manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act that can be arrived at is that interest under the said section becomes payable on the expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of application under subsection (1) of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and further, the explanation added to the said section does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act becom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the petitioners had committed no breaches. Accordingly, the respondents were duty bound to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioners and sanction for such refund has already been granted. 13] There is no dispute that the petitioners had filed two separate applications dated 10th October 2007 for refund, which was ultimately found to be due and payable to the petitioners. Accordingly, in terms of Section 27 and 27A of the said Act, the petitioners are entitled to interest on delayed refund on an expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of applications dated 10th October 2007 till the date of actual refund. Since the impugned order has failed to grant such interest, the same warrants interference. 14] Although, in this matter, the issue of alternate remedy was not raised by the respondents, we clarify in brief, reasons which prompted us to entertain the present petition without relegating the petitioners to avail alternate remedies under the Customs Act, 1962. In the first place, taking into consideration the chequered history of the matter and the fact that the petitioners were required to take out several proceedings in order to secure th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
