TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts that arises for consideration are that the Respondent herein had filed refund claim of Rs. 3,45,68,432/- arising out of finalization of provisional assessment of Biils of Entry. The Assistant Commissioner (Customs) Surat sanctioned the amount, but ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by such an order, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (A). The Commissioner of Customs (A) vide OIA No. 214 dated 27-10-2009 set aside the orders of the adjudicating authority of crediting the same to the consumer welfare fund ordered the same to be given to respondent. The said order-in-appeal was not acceptable to the department and they preferred an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t liable to pay interest. The interest liability arises only from the finalization of the provisional bills of entries. It is also his submission that provisional assessment of bills of entries was ordered prior to 13-7-2006, hence refund was allowed without applying the principles of unjust enrichment as envisaged under Section 27 of the Act. It is his submission that since there is no provision for giving interest before 13-7-2006, question of payment of interest does not arise. 6. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submit that the issue involved in this case is settled by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Areva T & D India Ltd. [2012-TIOL-1045-HC-MAD-Cus. = 2013 (290) E.L.T. 496 (Mad.)]. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... excess customs duty beyond three months from the date of provisional assessment of Bills of Entry. We find that the First Appellate Authority while allowing the claim for refund of interest on such amount has recorded the following findings: "As already mentioned above, while granting the refund claim of duty, the adjudicating authority rejected the appellant's claim of interest on the mere ground that the refund was sanctioned within the prescribed time limit and thus question of interest does not arise, holding that the appellant has requested for refund only on 29-6-2011. I find the adjudicating authority has mis-directed himself by applying the provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 in the instant case. In fact the present case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here is no provision for filing of refund claim as such under Section 18, Section 27 comes into play only after the adjustment process is complete and thereafter there is any question of further refund. Thus, treating the date of filing of refund (29-6-2011) by the adjudicating authority for ascertaining of interest is erroneous. 6.3 Besides under Section 18(4), any refund amount due is not paid to the claimant within three months from the date of final assessment of Bill of Entry, interest is liable to be paid. In the case on hand the assessment came to be finalized during the period from 24-1-2008 to 7-3-2008 in respect of 111 Bills of Entry under reference and refund was sanctioned and paid to the appellant on 4-8-2011. Thus apparently,....