Second respondent ordered to review refund application promptly after alleged delay. Writ petition disposed with directive.

The court directed the second respondent to review and decide on the refund application within four weeks from receiving the court's order, following alleged inaction. The writ petition regarding the clearance of imported machinery, including a printing machine and accessories, was disposed of with this directive, without costs to either party.

---

---

Issues:
1. Clearance of imported machinery
2. Compliance with terms of provisional release
3. Order by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
4. Refund application and inaction by second respondent

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed regarding the clearance of imported machinery, specifically a printing machine and standard accessories. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition which resulted in the provisional release of the machinery as directed by the court. Subsequently, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) issued an order on the proceedings related to the clearance of the machinery, which has been finalized and legally concluded. Following this, the petitioner filed a refund application on 05.10.2018, alleging inaction by the second respondent in processing the application. The petitioner's counsel requested a mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and decide on the refund application within a specified timeframe.

The court noted the narrow scope of the matter at hand, focusing on the refund application and the alleged inaction by the second respondent. In response to the petitioner's prayer, the court directed the second respondent to review the refund application dated 05.10.2018 and issue a decision within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the court's order. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions and without imposing any costs on either party.

---