Court quashes Customs' refund rejection due to hearing delay, emphasizes right to be heard.

The court quashed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs' order rejecting a refund claim, despite the petitioner's success on merits, due to a delay in receiving the notification for the application hearing. The court emphasized the petitioner's right to be heard and directed the Deputy Commissioner to issue a fresh order, allowing the petitioner to present their case. The petitioner was given a new hearing date to address the limitation issue and ensure a fair process in the refund application.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order rejecting refund claim, success on merits, limitation on refund application, opportunity for petitioner to be heard, quashing of impugned order, directions for fresh order by Deputy Commissioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs rejecting its claim for refund in connection with three bills of entry. Despite the petitioner's success on merits, the respondents contended that the refund application was time-barred. The Department had granted refunds for five bills of entries but not for the remaining three. The petitioner argued that the payments were made under protest, seeking to circumvent the limitation issue.

The notification for the application hearing was dispatched on 12.04.2016 and received by the petitioner on 23.04.2016, specifying hearing dates of 18.04.2016, 21.04.2016, or 25.04.2016 at 3:00 p.m. However, the petitioner only received the notice on 23.04.2016, leading to a delay in acknowledging the hearing dates. Given the circumstances, the court emphasized the importance of ensuring the petitioner's right to present their case on merits, especially since they had already paid the full duty and were seeking a refund, supported by their success in the Supreme Court.

Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Customs to issue a fresh order after allowing the petitioner an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 09.02.2017 at 11:00 a.m. and as per further directions from the authority. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition accordingly, ensuring the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and addressing the limitation issue in the refund application process.

---