TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (7) TMI 570
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plea of undue enrichment, if any, available to the respondents. Mr. Lokur says that the respondents would examine the matter and will pass an order on merits within a month from today, without insisting on the documents sought to be produced from the petitioner in their letter dated 24th January, 1992. To be listed for arguments on 22nd April, 1993." 3. In the order dated 22nd April, 1993 it is recorded that the respondents had issued refund to the petitioner on 17th March, 1993 and the question of interest from the date of payment till refund would be examined. For this purpose, Rule was issued and now the writ petition has been listed for hearing. No one has appeared for the petitioner and the respondent, but we notice that a limited an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the respondents should pay interest for the said delay as there is no justification and reason whatsoever in not refunding the amount. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated and accepted that the petitioner had made an application for refund on 29th August, 1991 but the same was not processed as the respondents had a right to file an appeal within 90 days, i.e., till 13th November, 1991 and in the meanwhile Section 27 of the Customs Act was amended with effect from 18th September, 1992. It is submitted that thereafter the respondents had written letter dated 24th January, 1992 asking for original appellate order and the original order against which the appeal was filed. We fail to understand the logic and the reasoning giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed above, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount realised by the respondent on encashment of bank guarantee is not contested. As noted above, the principal amount, so recovered, has been refunded to the petitioner on filing of the present writ petition. It is, Therefore, axiomatic that after the appeal of the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal in their favor, there was no justification whatsoever not to refund the excess customs duty recovered. As noted supra, even Board's circular dated 3 June 1998 clarifies that the refund is not to be withheld on the ground that an appeal is filed against the order giving relief to an assessed unless a stay order has been obtained. Admittedly in the present case no app....