2016 (3) TMI 610

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etitioner : Mr. N. Balaji For the Respondents : Mr. A. P. Srinivas, Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioners have filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in and connected with Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.II No.504/2015 dated 29.05.2015, passed by the second respondent herein upholding the Order-In-Original No.36021/2015 and 35021/2015 da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecting an excess of Rs. 1,92,760/-. Immediately, on realizing the excess debit from their bank account held with UCO Bank, a letter dated 16.05.2012 was addressed to the bank to refund the excess amounts debited, totalling Rs. 1,92,760/-. 3. By letter dated 30.05.2012, the Bank informed the petitioners Company that they have paid the Customs Duty on 09.05.2012 through ice-gate in net banking fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent, by his Order dated 29.5.2015, has stated that Sec.27 of the Customs Act 1962 cannot be made applicable for the reason that the said provision is applicable only to claim for refund of duty. Further, the second respondent rejected the appeal stating that the petitioners have not given any explanation/re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng that the petitioners have not given sufficient cause for the delay of 2 years and 10 months to file the refund application. 7. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been corresponding with the respondents for getting refund of the amount from the years 2012 to 2014. The reasoning, given by the second respondent, cannot be accepted. It is not i....