TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to the Respondent No.3 to forthwith pay interest of Rs.9,36,558/ for the period from 11.12.2004 to 12.11.2008, @ 6% per annum, as notified and in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The facts: 6. The Petitioner is a public limited Company. In October, 2009 the Petitioner had entered into a joint venture agreement with M/s. Shapoori Pallonji & Co. Ltd. A contract was awarded to the joint venture by the National Highway Authority of India limited for construction of roads between Srikakulam and Ichapuram for The Golden Quadrilateral Phase2 Project in Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner was rejected. The Petitioner therefore filed an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). On 5.7.2004, the Appellate Tribunal passed an order allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 26.8.2003 and held that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 17/01Cus. dated 1.3.2001. The Petitioner, in view of this order, filed an application dated 11th September, 2004 for refund of excess custom duty amounting to Rs.39,84,195/ paid on 18.3.2002. The Petitioner also claimed interest applicable on the duty so paid. On 10.10.2006, the Petitioner once again sought refund of duty along with the interest from Respondent No.2 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Rs.39,84,195/ to the Petitioner was made on 12.11.2008 without any interest. It is submitted that Section 27 and Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 are identical to Section 11B and Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Unless an application filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is rejected by the Respondent by an express finding that the application cannot be termed as an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 the liability to pay interest after expiry of the period of three months from the date of receipt of that application cannot be denied. In support of this submission, the decision of this Court in Swaraj Mazda Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009 (235) E.L.T. 788 was relied on, wherein it was held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.1.2002, it is clarified that refund Applications under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 need not be insisted upon. A simple letter from the person who has made such a deposit, requesting the return of the amount, alongwith an attested copy of the order in appeal or CEGAT order consequent to which the deposit made becomes returnable and an attested Photostat copy of the Challan in Form TR6 evidencing the payment of the amount of such deposit, addressed to the concerned Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise or Customs as the case may be, will suffice. Conclusion: 11. We have considered the above issue at length and expressed our reasoned view in the case of M/s Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the Petitioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act 1944 cannot be termed as an application made under Section 11B , liability to pay interest after expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of that application cannot be denied. In the present case too, the Respondent has not recorded any finding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Application dated 11th September, 2004, that the Application cannot be termed as an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the liability to pay interest to the Petitioner after expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Application dated 11th September, 2004 cannot be denied by the Respondents. Therefor....