TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 447
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund in the amount of Rs. 1.02 crores, which was due under an order passed by CESTAT dated 29 August 2006 has not been granted despite several requests and the passage of years. 3. Sometime in May 2001, an investigation was commenced by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the allegation that the First Petitioner had contravened the EPCG scheme and had violated the conditions of Notification 110/95. According to the Petitioners, a meeting was held on 15 June 2001 with the Additional Director General of the DRI when it was indicated to the Petitioners that according to the Revenue, the importation of capital goods was not in accordance with the licences issued to the First Petitioner and the imported equipment was not req....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... documents including the Bills of Entry, Invoices, adjudication order and the order in appeal. The Petitioners by their letter dated 30 July 2007 forwarded the relevant documents inter alia pertaining to the deposit of an amount of Rs. 1.02 crores by Pay Order No. 511337 dated 18 June 2001 drawn on Indusind Bank Ltd. in favour of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 4. Initially, the Department had preferred an appeal before this Court against the order of the Tribunal. Since the dispute pertains to the rate of duty, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 4 October 2007 before the Division Bench with liberty to move an appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 28 April 2008 on the ground tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 March 2009, the Petitioners' Advocate submitted a representation stating that the amount of Rs. 1.02 crores was handed over to the Department at Mumbai; the order of adjudication in respect of the appropriation of the amount was passed in Mumbai by the Commissioner of Customs and that accordingly, the Customs authorities at Mumbai were obligated to refund the amount. By a further letter dated 22 September 2009, these facts were reiterated in an Advocate's letter. By a letter dated 14 October 2009, the Petitioners were informed that the case has been forwarded to the Commissioner of Customs (Export) for factual report and the status of the case. By a letter dated 16 December 2009, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Saha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iginal issued by the Common Adjudicator appointed by the Board, the deposit amount had been converted to duty and adjusted against duty payment on account of Air Cargo Complex at New Delhi and CWC, Okhla, New Delhi. In this view, the refund claim may, it was directed, be decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Delhi. On 23 November 2010, the Commissioner of Customs, New Customs House, called upon the Petitioners to submit all documents in original, including payment particulars of Rs. 1.02 crores made during the investigations, merger documents pertaining to the merger of the First Petitioner and the balance sheet for the relevant period. The Petitioners responded by their Advocate's letter dated 22 December 2010. 7. We fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot resulted in any resolution of the matter. The Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a Circular dated 8 September 2004 mandating that refund of deposit should be effected within a period of three months from the order of the Appellate Tribunal, Court or other final authority unless there is a stay granted by the Superior Court. In the present case, not merely was there no stay from the superior Court, but the appeal of the Department was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 8. We find no reason or justification for the Revenue to contend that the application for refund should be pursued with the Air Cargo Complex at New Delhi. The deposit having been made in Mumbai, the order of adjudication having been passed in Mumbai, and the o....