TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies interest on customs duty refund; timely refund, no delay, no interest payable. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>BR. METAL P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS</h3> BR. METAL P. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 409 (Del.) Issues:1. Denial of interest on the refund of customs duty.2. Claim for interest on the refunded amount under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.Issue 1: Denial of interest on the refund of customs dutyThe Appellant imported goods and claimed that the customs duty was assessed at a higher value, resulting in excess duty payment. The Appellant filed a writ petition seeking a refund of the excess customs duty. The court allowed the Appellant to apply for a refund from the Respondents. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejected the application as time-barred, which the Appellant did not challenge. Subsequently, the court granted the Appellant liberty to apply for a refund, and the Customs Authorities approved the refund application on 10th November, 2003.Issue 2: Claim for interest on the refunded amount under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962After receiving the refund, the Appellant claimed interest on the refunded amount under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that the duty was paid under protest. The Respondents rejected the interest claim, citing non-conformity with the court's orders and lack of granted liberty for interest claim. The Appellant appealed the rejection, but the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT') both upheld the rejection.The court analyzed Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that interest is payable only after three months from the refund order if no refund is made within that period. Since the refund was granted on 10th November, 2003, and there was no delay in refunding the amount, the court held that no interest was due to the Appellant. The court emphasized that the Appellant did not raise the interest claim at the appropriate time and was merely attempting to gain more from the refund. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose, and there was no merit in the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
