TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect the main issue involved in this petition is whether the interest on delayed refund under Section 27A of the said Act is payable on expiry of period of three months from the date of receipt of refund application or whether interest is payable from the date on which the order for refund is actually made or confirmed. 4] The brief matrix of facts in which the aforesaid issue arises is as follows: (i) On 23rd January 1995, two quantity based Advance Licenses were issued to the petitioners by the office of Joint Chief Controlloer of Imports and Exports; (ii) Based upon the aforesaid, the petitioners imported goods which were permitted duty free by the Customs Authorities under Notification No.204 of 1992. It is the case of the petitioners that it neither sold the exempt material nor resultant products in the domestic market. However, there was delay on the part of the petitioners in completing their export obligation under the said Advance Licenses. This delay was condoned on requiring the petitioners to pay certain penalties ; (iii) At the time of imports, the petitioner did not pay any duties of customs relying upon exemption Notification No.204 of 1992. However, since ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed of by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that this Court had admitted Customs Appeal No. 96 of 2007 filed by the Department. This was despite the fact that no stay order had been granted by this Court to the appellate Tribunal's order dated 22nd March 2007. The petitioners, aggrieved by this order instituted Writ Petition No. 884 of 2010 in this Court; (xi) By order dated 8th February 2010, this Court, directed respondent No.3 to decide the petitioners' two refund applications dated 10th October 2007 within a period of four weeks after afford of personal hearing to the petitioners; (xii) By order dated 3rd October 2011, respondent No.3 rejected the petitioners' applications dated 10th October 2007 for refund. By order dated 4th May 2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order dated 3rd October 2011. However, by orders dated 6th September 2016/28th December 2016, the appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal instituted by the petitioners. The petitioners instituted Writ Petition No. 8269 of 2017 and the department filed appeal to challenge the aforesaid order dated 6th September 2016. Thereupon, the Dy. Commissioner of Customs sanctioned refund of Rs. 58,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court had in fact passed strictures against the Authority of the Customs Department for delaying consideration of application for refund and thereafter denying interest on delayed refund consistent with provisions of Section 27A of the said Act. He submits that despite this, interest on delayed refund has been denied to the petitioners and therefore, writ of mandamus is liable to be issued. 6] Mr. Sham Walve, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that in this case the petitioners had themselves deposited the amounts with department consequent upon delay in discharge of export obligation. He submits that the interest on delayed refund of pre-deposit is to be awarded only from the date of refund order and not upon the expiry of three months from the date of refund applications. In support of this, Mr.Walve relies upon the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad vs. I.T.C. Ltd. 179 E.L.T. 15 (SC), Abdulla Gani vs. Union of India - 48 S.T.R. 17 (Bom), Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India - 293 E.L.T. 523 (Guj). On such basis, Mr. Walve submits that this petition is liable to be dismissed. 7] The rival contentions now fall for our determination. 8] According ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners and therefore, the principles in case of ITC Ltd. (supra), Abdulla Gani (supra), Prempreet Textile Industries Ltd. (supra) will apply, cannot be accepted. In all the said decisions the issue involved related to refund of pre-deposit made before the appellate Tribunal during pendency of an appeal. In the present case, we are not at all concerned with any issue of refund of pre-deposit. In the present case, the petitioners made deposits in pursuance of express directions issued by the DGFT simply because there was some delay on the part of the petitioners in complying with the export obligation. Thereafter, such amounts were appropriated by the respondents on basis of orders that the petitioners had breached the terms and conditions of the Advance Licenses under Notification No. 204 of 1992. Such orders were ultimately set aside after it was found that the petitioners had committed no breaches. Accordingly, the respondents were duty bound to refund the amounts deposited by the petitioners and sanction for such refund has already been granted. 13] There is no dispute that the petitioners had filed two separate applications dated 10th October 2007 for refund, which wa....