TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 974X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority. As the respondents failed to sanction refund within three (03) months from the date of application, thus they are liable to pay interest for the delayed period. It is clear that in the instant case, in the light of the undisputed fact that the respondent has not sanctioned refund within the prescribed period of three months from the date of submission of the refund request by the petitioner, the respondent would be liable to pay interest in favour of the petitioner on the amounts ordered to be refunded in favour of the petitioner - In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent did not pass the refund sanction order within the prescribed period of three months and the delay on the part of the respondent in not passing the refund sanction order cannot be attributed or attributable to the petitioner, particularly when the adjudicatory process had to be mandatorily completed within the period of three months. It is significant to note that merely because there were certain deficiencies/lacunae in the refund claim by the petitioner, the said circumstance cannot be relied upon nor made the basis by the respondent in order to contend that it was entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e dated 20.10.2020 calling upon the petitioner as to why the request for grant of interest should not be rejected. In response thereto, petitioner reiterated its request and invited the attention of the respondent to the relevant provisions of the said Act of 1944, in particular, Sections 11-B and 11-BB of the said Act of 1944 and also cited various judgments of the Apex Courts, this Courts and other High Courts in support of its claim. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim for interest put forth by the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. Per contra, the respondent has filed its Statement of Objections and sought for dismissal of the petition inter alia contending that though the refund applications were made earlier, there were certain discrepancies and lacunae in the same, on account of which the respondent called upon the petitioner to furnish the details and documents and also make submissions in this regard and ultimately, pursuant to the petitioner making submissions during the period from 26.11.2018 to 04.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disputed fact that the respondent has not sanctioned refund within the prescribed period of three months from the date of submission of the refund request by the petitioner, the respondent would be liable to pay interest in favour of the petitioner on the amounts ordered to be refunded in favour of the petitioner. 9. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the respondent has rejected the claim for payment of interest put forth by the petitioner on the ground that though the petitioner had filed refund applications earlier, the same were defective on account of which the respondent called upon the petitioner to rectify the defects, produce documents and make submissions and accordingly, the subject refund orders having been passed within the prescribed period of three months from the date of the final submission made by the petitioner do not cast any liability upon the respondent to pay interest is concerned, an identical issue came up for consideration before the Hon ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore Vs. Gimpex Ltd 2020 (373) ELT 512 (KAR), after referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pped. It is thereafter refund claim for Rs.13,75,000/- plus interest was filed on 26.10.2009, which was returned by the authorities on 05.11.2009 on account of certain defects and it was re-submitted on 23.02.2010, which was returned by the revenue on 04.03.2010 and re-submitted by the appellant on 20.04.2010. However, said application was returned with deficiency memo dated 10.05.2010 for non-compliance of original observations. In the meanwhile, department had challenged the OIO No.13/2009 (Commissioner) dated 22.09.2009 before CESTAT and tribunal by Final Order No.546/2012 dated 06.08.2012 rejected the appeal of revenue and it was accepted by the department. It is thereafter fresh application for refund on 16.10.2012 seeking refund of the amount realized by department by invoking the Bank Guarantee of Rs.13,75,000/-. The adjudicating authority, adjudicated the refund claim and by order dated 27.02.2013, sanctioned the refund of Rs.13,75,000/- under Section 27(2) of the Act by holding claim has been filed within the time limit and rejected the claim for interest on the ground that application shall be deemed to have received on the date of complete application and application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed. 10. A similar view has been taken by the High Courts of Delhi, Madras, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana in the aforesaid judgments referred to supra. In fact, in Hamdard s case supra, the Apex Court has categorically held that it is obligatory on the part of the revenue to intimate the assessee to remove the deficiencies in the application within two days and in any event, if there are still deficiencies, it can proceed with the adjudication and reject the application for refund subject to the condition that by no stretch of imagination, the adjudicatory process has to be completed within three months and cannot be carried on beyond the prescribed period of three months as contemplated under Section 11-BB of the said Act of 1944. 11. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the respondent did not pass the refund sanction order within the prescribed period of three months and the delay on the part of the respondent in not passing the refund sanction order cannot be attributed or attributable to the petitioner, particularly when the adjudicatory process had to be mandatorily completed within the period of three months. It is significant to note that merely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
