TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 278
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No. 3 to the extent it sanctioned a refund of Rs. 19,69,787/- as against the claim of the Petitioner for refund of Rs. 41,47,261/-. The Petitioner further seeks a declaration that Instruction No. 22/2022 - Customs dated 06.09.2022, issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs be declared as non-est in law on the ground that circulars and instructions issued by the Board cannot prevail over the statute. 3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.03.2024, reveals that Respondent No. 3, relying upon Board's Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs dated 06.09.2022, considered the net realised value of sale of the seized gold and after deducting customs duty and expenses, sanctioned the refund of Rs. 19,69,787/-. The sanctioned amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....having accepted that the seized gold was disposed off on 05.03.2020, could not have applied Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs dated 06.09.2022, for calculating the refund. These Instructions have been issued post the sale of the seized gold. 10. It is further contention of the Petitioner that, in the Affidavit in reply dated 23.08.2024 filed by Mr. Anil Kodnani, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, though it is claimed that notices dated 05.02.2019 and 13.02.2020 were issued to the Petitioner purporting to inform him about sale of the said gold, no acknowledgment of the Petitioner is produced. In other words, the Petitioner denies that it received any intimation that his seized gold was going to be disposed of. This apart, there is no refe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2024 deserves to be set aside and the proceedings, in the present case, are required to be remanded to Respondent No. 3 for fresh consideration. We say this because many of the contentions raised by the Petitioner have not been considered by Respondent No. 3 whilst passing the impugned order. 15. Accordingly, we direct that:- (a) The impugned order dated 20.03.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent impugned by the Petitioner. In other words, to the extent Refund is granted to the Petitioner is not touched by this order. It is set aside to the extent Respondent No. 3 refuses to grant refund to the Petitioner. (b) Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 is directed to decide the claim of the Petitioner for r....