2020 (5) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d, has been called in question. 3. It is the contention of Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned counsel appearing for appellant that Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995, would provide for scrutiny of an application for refund to be filed in accordance with prescribed form and on such application being filed within a period of 10 working days scrutiny takes place and if it is found that application is incomplete in any manner, same would be returned and as such liability to pay interest would start from the date of receipt of complete application. He would also contend that Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 would indicate that application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10.05.2010 for non-compliance of original observations. In the meanwhile, department had challenged the OIO No.13/2009 (Commissioner) dated 22.09.2009 before CESTAT and tribunal by Final Order No.546/2012 dated 06.08.2012 rejected the appeal of revenue and it was accepted by the department. It is thereafter fresh application for refund on 16.10.2012 seeking refund of the amount realized by department by invoking the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 13,75,000/-. The adjudicating authority, adjudicated the refund claim and by order dated 27.02.2013, sanctioned the refund of Rs. 13,75,000/- under Section 27(2) of the Act by holding claim has been filed within the time limit and rejected the claim for interest on the ground that application shall be deeme....