2020 (1) TMI 384

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d consignments of metal scrap. The petitioner sold them at a price lower than the value declared at the time of import. The petitioner claimed refund of the aforesaid duty paid in terms of the notification. Certain flaws were noted by the respondents in the refund claims and therefore the refund claims were rejected. Under these circumstances, the petitioner had filed W.P.Nos.4770, 2496 and 2497 of 2013. By an order dated 3.11.2014, liberty was given to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner. 3. The Appellate Commissioner partly allowed the appeal by partly allowing the refund claims and partly disallowing the same. The petitioner therefore preferred the appeal before the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that against the order of the said Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in W.P.No.959 of 2013 dated 21.03.2013, the department had filed Writ Appeal No.928 of 2013 and the Hon'ble High Court in similar case while granting stay of operation of the order in W.P.No.1334 of 2013 dated 21.01.2013 pending disposal of W.A.No.1593 of 2014 in the case of Union of India vs. M/s.Radhalakshmi Metallurgical has the following order. "Notice, Interim stay, Post with W.A.Nos.927, 928, 2430, 1317 to 1325, 1376 of 2013. The case is still pending hence and cannot be relied. 10. Further, I find that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Principal Commissioner of Customs vs. Riso India Pvt Ltd., reported ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the amount refunded is not maintainable and is liable for rejection. Accordingly, I pass the following order :- ORDER I order rejection of claim of interest on the refund granted to M/s.M.M.Entrprises, 263, Mint Street Park Town, Chennai 600 003 for the reason stated supra". 6. The respondent has rejected the request of the petitioner by stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained as order passed by this court in M/s. KSJ Metal Impex (I) Private Limited though referred to in RISO India Private Limited 2016 (333) ELT 33 (Del) has been stayed by a Division Bench of this court and therefore the decision of the Delhi High Court was not acceptable and sustainable. 7. The learned counsel for the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16(339) ELT 356 (Bom). 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the revenue submitted that the impugned order is well reasoned and requires no interference and submitted that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. The learned counsel also filed a copy of the stay obtained in C.M.A.No.1342 of 2017 in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore v. M/s. Sun Combine, Coimbatore and another dated 17.06.2017 wherein the order of the Tribunal granting relief for interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, was stayed. The learned counsel further reiterated paragraph 21 of the counter affidavit. 13. I have c....