Court allows interest under Customs Act on duty amount, deems writ petition maintainable.

Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund)

Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) - 2019 (368) E.L.T. 1041 (Mad.) , [2020] 11 G S.T.R. - OL 339 (Mad) Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Classification of the amount collected as "duty" or "deposit."
3. Entitlement of the petitioner to interest on the refunded amount.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The court considered whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory appellate remedy. It was determined that the writ petition was maintainable because the issue at hand required interpretation of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, and involved no factual disputes. The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, especially when the facts are undisputed and the issue pertains to the interpretation of law.

2. Classification of the Amount Collected as "Duty" or "Deposit":
The court examined whether the amount collected from the petitioner was a "duty" or a "deposit." The petitioner argued that the amount was collected as Countervailing Duty (CVD) under a Bill of Entry and not as a deposit. The court noted that the Bill of Entry clearly indicated the amount as duty, and the Appellate Authority had set aside the assessment order, confirming that the duty was collected without authority of law. The court held that the amount collected was indeed "duty" and not a "deposit," rejecting the respondent's claim that it was a deposit to avoid paying interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act.

3. Entitlement of the Petitioner to Interest on the Refunded Amount:
The court addressed whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the refunded amount. Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates the payment of interest on delayed refunds from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India, which clarified that interest becomes payable from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application, not from the date of the refund order. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months from the date of their refund application, which was 20.09.2012. The court directed the respondent to pay the interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the interest claim was set aside. The court directed the respondent to pay interest on the refunded amount from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the refund application, in accordance with Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. No costs were imposed.