TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....toms, Chennai-IV". The said decision was rendered by the Single Bench of the CESTAT. 3. The Petitioners had successfully challenged the order in the first round of Writ Petitions in W.P.Nos.20995 to 20998 of 2016 & 2578 to 2581 of 2017 which came to be allowed on 13.07.2020 by Common Order. The details of the order as under:- Table-1 Sl. No. W.P.No. Date of Claim Date of Rejection of Claim W.P.No. (Cases filed after complete rejection of the claims) Order-in-Original Number and Date 1. W.P.No.1216 of 2021 22.10.2016 24.10.2016 (acknowledged) 22.12.2016 W.P.No.2580 of 2017 77052 of 2020 in F.No.SR. No.4458 of 2016 dated 27.11.2020 2. W.P.No.1217 of 2021 27.06.2016 29.06.2016 (acknowledged) 22.12.2016 W.P.No.2579 of 2017 77053 of 2020 in F.No.SR. No.2715 of 2016 dated 27.11.2020 3. W.P.No.1218 of 2021 17.09.2016 20.09.2016 (acknowledged) 14.12.2016 W.P.No.2578 of 2017 77054 of 2020 in F.No.SR. No.4009 of 2016 dated 27.11.2020 4. W.P.No.1220 of 2021 18.05.2016 25.05.2016 (acknowledged) 22.12.2016 W.P.No.2581 of 2017 76798 of 2020 in F.No.SR. No.S24/SA D/2151/2016 dated 06.11.2020 5. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere cannot be any refund of SAD on the ground that where VAT is "Nil" with respect to the imported goods. 6. Based on the above decision of the CESTAT in "M/s.Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-IV", 2017, SCC OnLine CESTAT 4916 vide Final Order Nos.40889 to 40898 of 2017, this Court has allowed the Appeal of the Petitioners in the following cases:- Sl. No. W.P.No. Date 1. W.P.Nos.3700, 2431 to 2433 of 2017 and 37790, 43838 and 43848 of 2016 23.09.2019 2. W.P.Nos.254, 255, 256, 257 of 2017 and W.P.Nos.43870 and 43871 of 2016 and W.P.No.14987 of 2017 05.12.2019 3. W.P.No.37472 of 2016 24.01.2020 4. W.P.Nos.20995 to 20998 of 2016 and 2578 to 2581 of 2017 13.07.2020 7. In the second round, the 2nd Respondent had rejected a part of the claim and allowed a part of the claim as detailed below:- Table-3 Sl. No. W.P.No. Original Amount of Claim Amount of Claim Rejected Amount of Claim Refunded 1. W.P.No.1216 of 2021 Rs. 8,36,279/- Rs. 5,13,874/- Rs. 3,22,405/- 2. W.P.No.1217 of 2021 Rs. 6,36,135/- Rs. 71,909/- Rs. 5,64,226/- 3. W.P.No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order-in-Original No. Date Observations 1. 41688 of 2015 29.09.2015 I order for the sanction of Rs. 9,81,575/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) as refund to the claimant M/s.HLG TRADING, HAA, 64, Phase VI, Focal Point, Ludhiana - 110 070, which was paid under TR6 Challans as detailed in respect of the Bills of Entry covered under the refund claim as mentioned in table supra. 2. 59709 of 2017 15.11.2017 I order for sanction of Rs. 20,53,034/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Thirty Four only) as refund to the claimant M/s.HLO TRADING, SPACE E, 3RD FLOOR, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING, 92 THE MALL, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB - 141 001 by way of RTGS/NEFT which was paid under e-receipts as detailed in respect of bills of entry covered under the refund claim as mentioned in table supra. 3. 59861 of 2017 20.11.2017 I order for sanction of Rs. 30,41,800/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Eight Hundred only) as refund to the claimant M/s.HLG TRADING, HAA 64, PHASE VI, FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB - 141 001 by way of RTGS/NEFT which was paid under ereceipts as detailed in respect of bills of entry c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....self makes it clear that if Special Additional Duty (SAD) was paid by remitting duty entertainment pass books steps refund is to be granted byway of credit or not with cash. 18. That apart, it is submitted that imposition by examining the officer concerned and thereafter part of the refund claim has been rejected as detailed above for want of particulars of the buyers to whom the imported goods namely, Polyester Knitted Fabric Stock Lot/Mixed Lot Rolls etc. 19. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents also submits that the Petitioners have also not filed VAT Return as is contemplated under the Circular mentioned above and therefore on this count also, the Impugned Order does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents also submit that there are overwhelming of the evidences indicating that the transaction are not bona fide and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents also submits that the Respondents have strictly complied with Circular No.18/2013-Cus., dated 29.04.2013 and Circular No.869/7/2008-CX dated 16.05.2008. In Circular No.869/7/2008- CX dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Bombay High Court and that of this Court:- i. Union of India and others Vs. B.T.Patil & Sons, Belgaum (Construction) Private Limited, (2024) 3 SCC 645 ii. Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3324 iii. Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2023 (383) E.L.T. 528 (Mad.) / (2022) 1 Centax 81 (Mad.) 25. In "Union of India and others Vs. B.T.Patil & Sons, Belgaum (Construction) Private Limited", (2024) 3 SCC 645, involving refund of duty drawback, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "62. As we have already examined, under sub-section (1) of Section 75-A of the Customs Act, where duty drawback is not paid within a period of three months from the date of filing of claim, the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback. This section provides that the interest would be at the rate fixed under Section 27-A from the date after expiry of the said period of three months till the payment of such drawback. If we look at Section 27-A, the interest rate prescribed thereunder at the relevant point of time was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of the Madras High Court in Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) also supports the petitioner's case. In the context of the provisions of Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, it holds that the intention of the legislature clearly spelt out in the above provision of law was that the interest was liable to be paid after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund and not from the date of passing of the order of refund. The court held that the object behind such provision for the payment from the date of the application was obvious. Once an order of refund is made, the liability to pay the same dates back from the date of its collection. In other words, an amount collected by Revenue without the authority of law or by the erroneous application of the provision of law, if retained by the Revenue all along without having any legal right to retain the same, such collection and retention would amount to unjust enrichment. Thus, liability to return or refund to the person from whom it was collected commences on the day it was demanded and collected. Therefore, when the liability to refund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on like Section 244A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the Customs Act. 29. In Shakun Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Appeals), Chennai, the concerned facts which have no relevance to the issue involved in the present case. In fact, Madras High Court has held that Section 27A of the Customs Act provides time limit within which the application for refund to be disposed of failing which the assessee would be entitled to claim interest. 30. Thus, on facts and in law, this Petition deserves to succeed. The revenue's entire approach has been far from fair. The petitioner was forced to litigate for the refund's recovery, and after the refund was sanctioned belatedly, the revenue, quite unreasonably, resisted interest payment on the delayed refunds. It is not as if the stakes were high for the revenue. The interest claim of the Petitioner comes to Rs. 4,21,940/-. 31. For all the above reasons, we allow this petition and direct the respondent to pay the petitioner the interest amounting to Rs. 4,21,940/- on the delayed refund of SAD. The respondent must pay the petitioner this amount within two months of today. 32. Failing this, the respon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs under sub-section (2) of section 27, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal Tribunal or as the case may be, by the court shall be deemed to be an order passed under that sub-section for the purposes of this section. 13. As per the aforesaid provision, interest is payable from 3 months from date of receipt of the refund application till date of payment. In this case, the date of refund application is 27-8-1994 and in light of the order passed above holding the refund payable, interest would be applicable on the amount to be refunded on accessories in terms of Section 27A, from 3 months from date of refund application till date of payment. The same reasoning would hold good in respect of coils as well." 28. The issue was re-examined which has now culminated in the respective Impugned Orders which have been passed rejecting part of the refund claims filed under Notification No.102/2007-Cus., dated 14.09.2007. Text of the Notification reads as under:- "G.S.R. (E). In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act,1962 (52 of 1962....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order passed by the office of The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) vide order dated 20.07.2016 bearing reference No. Order in Appeal C.Cus II No.729 to 733/2016 dated 20.07.2016. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. By the impugned order, the first respondent- Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) has confirmed the order of the second respondent claiming refund of SAD (Special Additional Duty) in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007. Both the counsel fairly submits that the Department has accepted the availability of SAD refund and to that effect, orders have been passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3700, 2431 to 2433 of 2017 etc., dated 23.09.2019. The operative portion of the order which reads as follows: "Common Order" "The petitioners in this batch of writ challenge notices/order-in-original/ appellate orders proposing to reject/rejecting the request for refund of special additional duty. 2. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents fairly points out that the issue of refund of special additional d....