TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6 different consignments, 5 of which were received in October 1986 and the remaining 11 were received in February-March 1987. The goods under the 16 consignments were provisionally cleared against ITC Bonds and the customs duty was paid on merit rates. The Essentiality Certificate regarding payment of customs duty was issued and based upon it, the applicant had claimed refund of the excess amount of duty. Various rounds of litigation eventually led to preferring an appeal being Appeal No.570/2013 whereby, the Commissioner, Customs Department directed finalization of all the 16 Bills of Entry vide order dated 21.08.2013. The said order had attained finality as it had remained unchallenged. Despite the above order, the Customs authority did not finalize the refund and continued to demand documents till 23.01.2017 when a final assessment order on the Bills of Entries came to be passed. However, the refund claim was not processed. The applicant, therefore, filed the captioned petition claiming refund of Rs. 5,51,82,641.08 along with interest thereon. Pending the petition, on 21.11.2019, various informations had been sought for and the matter was posted on 02.12.2019. 2.1 It is the say....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appropriately for the same. (B) The Honourable Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 04.11.2020 passed by the Respondent in willful and deliberate breach of the Honourable Court's order and be further pleased to direct refund of the duty along with appropriate interest to the petitioner. (C) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed appropriate. (D) Order exemplary costs of the present petition." 3. This Court had issued Notice on 22.01.2021. On behalf of the respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) has filed affidavit-inreply tendering unconditional apology for any unintended mistake, error or inadvertence on the part of the respondent authority. According to him, the respondent puts the majesty of the Court at the highest pedestal and there was no intention to misinterpret the order. What has been construed is that the respondent has been directed to decide the issue afresh and under that obligation and understanding, the claim of the applicant has been decided, after affording the opportunity of representation and personal hearing. It is stated that as per the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by this Court, in the last para....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n fact, directed the authority to decide both the aspects of refund and interest, after taking into consideration the material available on record. 3.4 It is further the say of the respondent that the applicant had entered into a contract with M/s. Techno Exports, Moscow and had continued its business for three years and after a long gap, the applicant had applied for concessional rate of duty under the exemption Notifications. The Contractor had imported the goods, however, the duty exemption was claimed by the applicant. Therefore, unjust enrichment was mandatory, even when the goods were exported as per the provisions of law. Hence, the amount, if any, received from the Customs Department was required to be shown in the Balance Sheet as "receivables" with the certification that no credit / benefits such as CENVAT, VAT, MODVAT, Sales Tax or any other scheme relevant at that time, had been claimed. It is not known whether any such benefit had been availed by the applicant during that period or not. According to the stand of the respondent, even though the goods were re-exported, the amount must fall in the category of "receivable" in the Balance Sheet, otherwise, as per Section 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reasoned order within the stipulated period on 29.11.2019. In the said order dated 29.11.2019, the refund claim of the applicant was allowed and the excess duty of Rs. 5,41,82,641/- was ordered to be credited in the Consumer Welfare Fund, as provided under Section 27(2) of the Act, since the applicant had failed to justify the unjust enrichment and the interest portion of Rs. 17,03,05,689.63/- had not been approved. It is, thus, emphasized that the order of this Court was for deciding both the aspects of refund as well as interest and the same had to be decided on the basis of the material available on record and by affording opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant. There has been due compliance of the entire order and hence, there is no justification to entertain this application. 4. This Court has heard at length learned advocate Mr. A.R. Mehta for the applicant and learned ASG Mr. Devang Vyas for the opponent. Along the line of their respective pleadings, they have argued the matter. One of the contentions raised by the learned ASG is with regard to the requirement of entertaining this application for contempt, when other avenues are already open to the applicant for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy been submitted and giving liberty to the petitioner to produce any material, if they so choose, and decide to make payment of refund with appropriate interest admissible under law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of the Court. With this observation, the petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. " 6. It is quite clear from the observations made in paragraph-13 that the Court had directed the respondent authority to decide the aspect of payment of refund along with interest. The Court took care of the fact that the authority should not insist upon any other material and should decide the matter on the basis of the material which is already with it and if the petitioner is desirous of adding additional material after affording the opportunity to the applicant to produce any material on record, it would decide both the aspects, of refund and interest. Decision of the issue regarding refund with appropriate interest was to be determined within 30 days from the date of receipt of writ of the order. It is more than clear from the order itself that the Court had directed the authority to decide both the aspects o....