2022 (4) TMI 951

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cause as to why the refund amount of Rs. 2,26,75,276/- sanctioned to the petitioners should not be recovered from them in terms of Section 28(4) along with applicable interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, and as to why the penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. It is case of the petitioners that the first petitioner was involved in import of yarn, polyester yarn and fabric, polyester film and other industrial items from various countries through various customs ports into India including the Chennai Seaport. It is submitted that during the Financial Years 2007-2008 to 2015-2016, the first petitioner imported goods under 162 Bills of Entry through the Chennai Seaport. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. of Bills of Entry Refund Application No. / date Order in Original No. / date Refund Amount 1 Inderpal Marwah & Co. (05.05.2016) 58 2177/16 (26.05.2016) 48037/16 (22.06.2016) Rs. 71,07,735/- 2 Arun Vishwamitter & Associates (13.05.2016) 2 2250/17 (19.05.2017) 55853/17 (07.06.2017) Rs. 2,16,583/- 3 Inderpal Marwah & Co. (12.07.2016) 5 2976/16 (14.07.2016) 48888/16 (28.07.2016) Rs. 6,64,427/- 4 Arun Vishwamitter & Associates (02.09.2016) 49 3885/16 (09.09.2016) 56832/17 (15.02.2017) Rs. 1,46,86,531/- 5 Arun Vishwamitter & Associates (09.09.2016) 48 3904/16 (09.09.2016) Total Rs. 2,26,75,276/- 7. It is submitted that in respect of refund of 97 (49 + 48) Bills of Entry in Sl.Nos.5 & 6, the first petitioner....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r cannot be said to have been erroneously refunded. It is therefore prayed for quashing the impugned Show Cause Notice as it has been issued without jurisdiction and without authority of law. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:- i. Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai, 2016 (337) E.L.T. 189 (Mad); ii. Commissioner of Customs Vs. Millat Fibers, 2011 (271) E.L.T. 512 (Guj.). iii. Madurai Power Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai-1, 2008 (229) E.L.T. 521 (Mad.) iv. Honda Siel Power Products Vs. Union of India, 2020 (372) E.L.T. 30 (All.) v. C.C. & C.E., Tirupati Vs. Panyam Cements & Minnerals Industries Ltd., 2016 (331) E.L.T. 206 (A.P.) vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....a District Co-Op. MilK P. Union Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 325 (S.C.) xxii.Culcutta Discount Co. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District 1 Calcutta and Another, (1961) 2 SCR 241 : AIR 1961 SC 372 xxiii.East India Commercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta, 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.) xxiv.Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2016 (341) E.L.T. 110 (Del.) xxv.E.I.Dupont India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 2014 (305) E.L.T. 282 (Guj.) xxvi.Kesoram Cements, Basantnagar Vs. Union of India and others, 1982 (10) E.L.T. 214 (A.P.) xxvii.Ebiz.com Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & S.T., 2017 (49) S.T.R.389 (All.) xxviii.Adarsh Metal Corporation Vs. Union of India, 1993....