2017 (8) TMI 1090

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed by the second respondent in Order-in-Original No.202/2016 dated 04.11.2016. By the impugned order, the petitioner's application for demand of interest on the amount refunded has been restricted only for a period of 41 days calculated from 09.12.2014, the date on which the completed claim for refund was filed. 4. The petitioner's case is that the matter pertaining to whether the petitioner was liable to pay duty or not on the exports of prawns and shrimps, attained finality on 27.12.2010 when the CESTAT passed final orders. Though the Tribunal passed the order on 04.06.2009 allowing the petitioner's appeal, it being not a speaking order, the petitioner had approached this Court and filed a writ petition which was disposed o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 03.08.2016. This application was considered and the impugned order was passed granting interest for 41 days being a sum of Rs. 6,48,992/-. This amount has been credited to the petitioner's bank account on 28.09.2016. 5. The petitioner's case is that the impugned order restricting the interest claim to 41 days is erroneous and the petitioner is entitled for interest from the date of the application dated 03.03.2011. Further it is submitted that the finding contained in paragraph-15 of the impugned order stating that 114 numbers of challans were submitted by the petitioner to Chennai-V Division only on 09.09.2014 after which the refund claim was processed, is factually an incorrect statement and it is clearly an afterthought. I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n appellate remedy which they have not availed. 7. After hearing the learned counsels for a considerable length of time, this Court finds that the issue agitated by the petitioner in this writ petition, is purely factual. This is so because the question would be as to what is the date on which the petitioner had submitted the original TR-6 challans before the concerned authority. No doubt in the order granting refund dated 16.01.2015 the refund authority has recorded that 114 challans have been produced by the petitioner, but while passing the order of refund, the question of interest was not the subject matter. Therefore, the said authority could not have had an occasion to take note of the date of submission of the challans as what was b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e done in a writ petition especially when the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal. Therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to file an appeal as against the impugned order as the appellate authority has jurisdiction to call for the original files, verify the date of application, whether the application was complete in all respects and if it was not so, why it was not returned within 48 hours, whether the petitioner had sought for time to produce the original challans, whether the original challans were produced along with the application for refund or was it submitted only on 09.09.2014, what was the stage of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court between the date of the Tribunal's....