2013 (4) TMI 256

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity. 2. The facts arising for consideration in this case are as follows. The appellant imported consignments of citric acid and cleared the same under DEEC licence claiming the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., dated 19-5-1992 vide bills of entry filed in November 1993 to January 1994. After clearance of the goods, a less charge memo was issued to the appellant vide notice dated 29-6-1994 alleging that they were not eligible for the benefit of said exemption Notification. In the meanwhile, in 1994 the appellant was forced to pay the duty involved of Rs. 12,58,525/-. The less charge demand was confirmed vide order No. S/16-Misc.-67/94-VII, dated 1-5-1996 against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate autho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led refund claim as early as in September 1994 vide application dated 12-9-1994 for refund of the said amount of Rs. 12,58,525/-. With effect from 1-12-1995, Section 27A was inserted into the Customs Act vide Finance Act, 1995 which provide for payment of interest on delayed refund on the expiry of three months from the date of application of refund till the date of refund of the duty. Since the said section came into force in December 1995, they are entitled for the benefit of interest as provided for under Section 27A of the Customs Act. The ld. counsel also relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories v. UOI [2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that interest on delayed refund is payable under S....