2001 (1) TMI 990

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere filed by the respondent GSFC which were provisionally assessed at the rate of15%. The Bills of Entry relate to imports made during the years1989 and 1990. On 19.4.1991, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar decided the matter in favour of GSFC and held that consequential refund be granted to GSFC in respect of the cases where the goods were assessed to duty at the rate of 15% ad-valorem. In view of the aforesaid order, GSFC filed a refund claim for an amount of Rs. 1,48,41,113/- on 4.6.1991. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 31.5.1995 proposing to deal with the refund claim as per section 27 of the Act. By order dated17.8.1995, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund claims subject to transferring the refund amount ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or 'rectification of the mistake' which came to be rejected by CEGAT on 23.8.2000. The Revenue again preferred another application before the CEGAT and in that application, the CEGAT has directed the Revenue to grant refund and to report compliance by 25.1.2001. 4. Reading the order dated 24.11.1998, it is clear that at the relevant time before the CEGAT, the contention of the Revenue was that GSFC has not produced any evidence to show that the goods imported have been captively consumed by GSFC in its factory, to which advocate for GSFC stated that sufficient evidence shall be produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) in support of its contention that the goods have been so used. CEGAT therefore directed the Commissioner to con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the intervening period, GSFC is not entitled to refund. 7. The power of the High Court to issue a writ under Article 226is discretionary. Inordinate delay is an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. We are conscious of the fact that the Limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions, but where the delay is of more than a reasonable period, it will be proper for this Court to hold that the delay is unreasonable. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that this Court should take into consideration the fact that the Revenue was agitating before another forum. Even if that fact is taken into consideration, after several rounds of litigation, the CEGAT decided the matter finally on 1.11.1999, and thus there is delay of....