TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 842
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llants had imported various types of cooking coal and steam coal classified under CTH 2701 1910 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 through New Mangalore Port under 12 Bills of Entry. The import was permitted under provisional assessment pending investigation and determination of the value of imported goods from related person. The appellant had paid customs duty as assessed along with 1% EDD pending investigation by Special Valuation Branch (SVB). The Additional Commissioner of Customs, GATT Valuation Cell, Mumbai vide Order-in-Original dated 9.9.2015 ordered acceptance of the 'transaction value' as declared in the invoices and directed the customs authorities to finalize the assessment. Thereafter, the appellant became entitled to refund of 1% ED....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings relating to SVB, which has reached its finality and DRI may enforce the results of its investigations under separate proceedings as provided. Finally, the Commissioner has held that the appellant is eligible for refund of 1% EDD subject to verification of documents and satisfaction of factum of unjust enrichment. Thereafter, ACC, Mangalore vide Order-in-Original No.152/2017 dated 2.1.2018 has implemented the order of the Commissioner (A) and sanctioned refund of 1% EDD amounting to Rs. 3,06,76,376/-. Further, the ACC, Mangalore held that the appellant did not submit all the required details in original, however, the refund was sanctioned after due verification of all the documents from the concerned authority. Therefore, he did not aw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid the EDD. (iii) Copy of SVB Order dated 9.9.2015 passed by the ADC, GATT Cell and Mumbai. (iv) Cost Accountant Certificate for unjust enrichment. (v) Worksheet showing Bills of Entry wise EDD paid. (vi) Copy of relevant pages of Balance Sheet as at 31.3.2015 & Ledger Account Extracts. (vii) Brief Grounds of refund claim. 4.1 He further submitted that the Asst. Commissioner in his Order-in-Original dated 2.1.2018 while sanctioning refund has recorded in para 3 of the said order the list of documents submitted along with the application form for refund. He further submitted that from the adjudication order, it is clear that the appellant has submitted all the relevant documents required for verification of the payment of 1% EDD in re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4.3 He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal/High Court and Supreme Court consistently. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. UOI: 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) (ii) UOI vs. Hamdard (Waqf) Laboratories: 2016 (333) ELT 193 (SC) (iii) JK Cement Works vs. ACCE: 2004 (170) ELT 4 (Raj.) affirmed by Supreme Court in 2005 (179) ELT A150 (SC) (iv) CC, Airport & ACC, Bangalore vs. Pfizer Products India P. Ltd.: 2015 (324) ELT 259 (Kar.) (v) CC (Prev.) Jamnagar vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.: 2015 (317) ELT 621 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (vi) M/s. Om Refoils Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr.: 2018-TIOL-181-HC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of receipt of the application. Thus, the said decision is of no avail to the revenue. 15. In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made." 6.1 Similarly in the case of CC, Airport & ACC, Bangalore vs. Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after considering the provisions of the grant of interest on delayed refund in para 11 has observed as under: 11. Fr....