2022 (5) TMI 591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on forthwith refund the IGST paid on the export of goods covered by the two shipping bills No. 7837037 and No. 8697421 respectively. (b) Order payment of interest @ at least 15% per annum on the refund unreasonably and unjustifiably withheld by the respondent for nearly over two years without passing any order" 2. The broad facts, which are required to be noticed for disposal of the writ petition, are : 2.1. The petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of electrical connectors falling under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. 2.2. The petitioner avers [and that there appears to be no dispute about this fact] that its factory is located at Dudhola, Palwal, Haryana. 2.3. Insofar as the instant writ petition is conce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....IGST was not granted to the petitioner. The petitioner has remained engaged with the respondent/revenue in this regard since October, 2018. Because there was no movement in the matter, the petitioner was propelled to file the instant petition. 3. Mr Harpreet Singh, who appears on behalf of the respondent/revenue, seeks to place reliance on the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs' (CBIC) Circular dated 09.10.2018. In particular, Mr Singh has relied upon paragraph 3 of the said circular. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraph is extracted hereafter: "3. It has been noted that exporters had availed the option to take drawback at higher rate in place of IGST refund out of their own volition. Considering the fact tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lumn B [drawback rate when CENVAT facility has been availed] is identical i.e., 2%. Therefore, paragraph 3 of the circular dated 09.10.2018 will have no application in the instant case. 7. As indicated hereinabove, the petitioner had sought amendment of the duty drawback code, which was permitted upon payment of Rs. 4,000/- as fee and penalty in respect of each of the subject shipping bills. This amendment was permitted in October, 2018. 7.1. Despite this correction having been permitted, the refund of IGST was not ordered. 8. As correctly argued by the petitioner, the issue at hand is covered by the judgments of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Amit Cotton Industries v. Principal Commissioner of Customs, 2020 SCC On....