Interest on delayed customs refund calculated from original application date, not follow-up letter under Sections 27 and 27A

Bombay HC held that interest on delayed refund of Special Additional Duty under Sections 27 and 27A of Customs Act, 1962 must be calculated from the original refund application date, not from a subsequent follow-up letter. The court rejected revenue's argument that interest should commence only from the reminder application, ruling that a follow-up letter cannot be construed as a fresh refund application. Citing SC precedent in Union of India vs. Hamdard Laboratories, the court emphasized statutory liability for interest payment at 6% per annum from the original application date. The petitioner was awarded interest of Rs. 4,21,940 on delayed refund, payable within two months.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Calculation of interest period for the delayed refund.
3. Applicability of Section 27A explanation regarding the starting point for interest calculation.
4. Completeness and acknowledgment of the refund application as per Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995.
5. Legal precedents and statutory interpretation concerning delayed refunds and interest.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Interest on Delayed Refund:

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to pay interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund of SAD, as per Sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The court noted that the petitioner had faced undue delays in the processing of the refund, which was initially applied for on 04 August 2014, and was only sanctioned on 01 April 2024. Despite the refund being granted, no interest was awarded, prompting the petitioner to claim Rs. 4,21,940/- as interest on the delayed refund.

2. Calculation of Interest Period:

The respondent argued that interest should be calculated from 08 November 2022, following a subsequent application on 08 August 2022, after the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 30 June 2022. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the interest should be calculated from 04 September 2014, three months after the initial application date of 04 August 2014, as the refund was wrongfully delayed by the respondent.

3. Applicability of Section 27A Explanation:

The respondent contended that the explanation to Section 27A applied, suggesting that the interest period should begin from the date of the subsequent application. The court found this contention untenable, clarifying that the explanation to Section 27A did not apply since the refund order was not made by the Commissioner (Appeals) but was ultimately decided by the respondent. The court emphasized that the starting point for interest calculation is the date of the original application, not the date of any subsequent application or order.

4. Completeness and Acknowledgment of the Refund Application:

The court examined whether the initial application for refund was complete and acknowledged as per the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995. It was noted that the respondent did not claim any deficiencies in the original application, nor were any pointed out within the prescribed timeframe. The court concluded that the application was complete and any subsequent communication was merely a follow-up, not a new application, thus reinforcing the entitlement to interest from the original application date.

5. Legal Precedents and Statutory Interpretation:

The court referenced several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories, which held that the liability for interest is statutory and commences from the expiry of three months from the refund application date. Other high court decisions, such as those from Delhi and Karnataka, supported the petitioner's case, affirming that interest on refunds should be calculated from the date of the initial application. The court dismissed the respondent's reliance on tribunal decisions, noting that the factual situations in those cases were not comparable.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to pay Rs. 4,21,940/- as interest on the delayed refund within two months. If not paid within this period, the respondent was ordered to pay interest at 8% per annum, with potential consequences under the Contempt of Court Act for non-compliance. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 15,000/- in costs to the petitioner. The rule was made absolute with costs, underscoring the statutory entitlement to interest on delayed refunds and the importance of adhering to statutory timelines.

---