TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of interest at the applicable rate and to sanction the same to the Respondent. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondent had filed claims for refund of the additional duty of customs under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 along with interest. The refund amounts of Rs 7,20,752 and Rs.15,50,218/- were sanctioned by the Asst. Commissioner (Refunds) vide Orders in Original No.26517 and 26589 both dated 18.06.2014, respectively but were silent about the claim of interest. Aggrieved, the respondent filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) claiming interest for the delay in the sanction of refund. The appellate authority, vide Order in Appeal C. Cus No. 1825 to 1831/2014 dated 26.09.2014 remanded the issue back ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pugned Order in Appeal, set aside the Order in Original No. 35821/2015, dated 13.03.2015, and directed the lower adjudicating authority to calculate the amount of interest at the applicable rate and to sanction the same to the respondent. The Ld. Appellate Authority found that since it was not shown that the Department has obtained stay against the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s KSJ Metal Impex P. Ltd., Chennai, department is bound to follow the order of the Hon'ble High Court. Aggrieved by the impugned Order in Appeal, the Department has preferred this Appeal and the parties are now before this Tribunal. 5. Ms. OM Reena, learned authorized representative appearing for the appellant contended that order passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods and such refunds are governed by the provisions of the notification as described above. Hence the provisions under Section 27 and Section 27A of the Customs Act would not apply to the cases relating to the exemption notifications referred to above. (v)The decision of the Honourable High Court in KSJ Metal Impex Private Limited allowing a batch of writ petitions and quashing the relevant para of circular number 6/ 2008 has been appealed against in the writ appeal referred by the department, and has not attained finality. 6. Shri. S Murugappan, learned counsel, appeared for the Respondent and submitted that the issue stands decided in favour of the Respondent in the Respondent's own case reported as M/s. HLG Trading, through its pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at liberty to decide the matter." Therefore, no doubt the matter may not have attained finality, but that did not shackle the Ld. Appellate Authority, from proceeding to decide the matter based on the ratio laid down therein, in the absence of any stay. The said plea of the Revenue is thus noted, only to be rejected. 9. On merits, we find that the issue need not detain us any further and as rightly stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent, the lis inter-se the Respondent and Revenue on this matter, stands settled vide the decision in the Respondent's own case reported as M/s. HLG Trading, through its proprietor Gagan Goyal Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II), Chennai, reported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 duty was considered by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2017 and the issues decided in favour of the importer. This order has been accepted by the Department. 3. These writ petitions are thus liable to be allowed and I do so. The petitioners may seek refund of the special additional duty paid by way of an applications to be filled within a period of two (2) weeks from today. Upon receipt thereof, necessary orders for refund shall be pas....