Full refund and delayed refund interest confirmed where the original claim was ultimately allowed.

Where a refund claim was ultimately upheld after initial rejection, the amended notification could not be used to reduce the amount already found payable on the original claim. The refund was therefore to be sanctioned in full rather than on a proportionate basis, because the earlier tribunal allowance had already required the department to act on that claim. Interest was also payable for delay, running from three months after filing of the original refund application until actual sanction, on the settled principle governing delayed refunds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refund of duty was to be granted in full as claimed in the original refund application or only on a proportionate basis under the amended notification; (ii) Whether interest was payable on the delayed refund from three months after filing of the original refund claim.

Issue (i): Whether the refund of duty was to be granted in full as claimed in the original refund application or only on a proportionate basis under the amended notification.

Analysis: The original refund claim had been rejected, but the earlier Tribunal order allowing the appeals had attained acceptance by the department. The later Supreme Court ruling upholding the amended refund notifications was applied to pending refund applications, but the Court held that the present claims were not to be treated as pending in that sense because the appellants had already succeeded before the Tribunal and the department was required to act on that allowance. The amended notification could not be used to reduce the refund already found payable on the original claim once the appeal had been allowed.

Conclusion: The refund was required to be sanctioned in full as claimed in the original refund application, and not on a proportionate basis.

Issue (ii): Whether interest was payable on the delayed refund from three months after filing of the original refund claim.

Analysis: Once refund was ultimately held payable after rejection at the original stage, the entitlement to interest followed from the settled rule that interest runs after expiry of three months from the date of filing of the refund application until actual sanction. The Court applied the principle governing delayed refund interest and held that the appellants were kept out of their refund for the relevant period.

Conclusion: Interest was payable after three months from the date of filing of the original refund claim until the date of sanction of refund.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the appellants obtained complete refund relief with statutory interest on delayed payment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim is ultimately allowed after initial rejection, the claimant is entitled to the full refund found payable and to interest from the expiry of the prescribed period after filing of the original claim until actual sanction.

---