2023 (2) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents, whereby its application for refund was rejected. The petitioner further prays that directions be issued to the respondents to process its claim for refund of Extra Duty Deposit (hereafter 'EDD') of Rs.13,53,326/- in a time bound manner. 2. The petitioner claims that it is engaged in the business of importing goods from various overseas entities including some that are related to the petitioner. 3. During the period of April, 2014 to December, 2017, the petitioner had imported certain goods from Sentec E&E Co. Ltd., Taiwan and other associated companies. 4. The said imports were from related parties, thus, the same were subject to assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (hereafter 'SVB') in terms of the Customs Valuation (D....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... respondent no. 1 to the extent of denial of refund of Rs.13,53,326/-. 8. Notwithstanding the petitioner had prevailed in his challenge to the order dated 20.06.2019, whereby its application for refund of Rs.13,53,326/- was rejected, the respondents did not process the petitioner's application for refund of EDD. Undisputedly, this would be the necessary consequence of the order dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeal). 9. On 22.07.2022, the petitioner made a written request, essentially, calling upon the respondents give effect to the appellate order dated 20.06.2019 and refund the balance amount of Rs.13,53,326/-. 10. The petitioner's request for this refund was treated as a fresh application under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any application or any appeal. 14. Both the grounds, as stated in the counter affidavit, are bereft of any merit. 15. Respondent no. 1 has misdirected itself in considering the petitioner's request for refund of the balance amount of Rs.13,53,326/- made on 22.07.2022 as a fresh application. The said request was in continuation of the proceedings relating to the application for refund dated 19.02.2019. Thus, the question of the petitioner's claim being barred by limitation does not arise. 16. In view of the above, the second ground that the petitioner had not quoted the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 (supra), does not arise in the present case. 17. Notwithstanding the above, the ....