TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 160
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls of Entry in question on the basis of the aforesaid order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and to sanction the refund of excess customs duty of Rs. 45,08,079/- in respect of the 28 excess Bills of Entry in question and further to direct the said respondents to grant interest on the aforesaid amount from March, 2000 till the date of the refund. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of buying and selling various computer related items like computer printers, cartridges for printers etc. The petitioner has a factory at Bangalore which manufactures Computers. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that right from 1992-93 the petitioner had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pay the Customs duty @ 25% and not @ 5%. Since the petitioner required the consignments on urgent basis, the petitioner sought provisional assessment of the goods imported and sought to pay the differential customs duty under protest, so as to clear the consignments. However, along with each of the Bills of Entry the petitioner also filed letters stating that the excess customs duty which has been recovered from them is not being passed on to the buyers. 7. It may be mentioned that the Central Board of Excise & Customs vide letter dated 11-4-2000 directed all the Commissioner of Customs to assess the inkjet cartridges provisionally under sub-heading 8473.30 as parts of Automatic Data Processing Machines by taking a simple bond for diffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Department against this order before the CEGAT, or any other Court or authority. Hence, the said order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 7-8-2001 has become final. 11. Consequent to the passing of the above order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) the petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner through various letters to finalise the assessment of the Bills of Entry and sanction the refund claim which is due to them. However, respondents have not even replied to the said letters nor have they implemented the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 7-8-2001. Hence, this writ petition. 12. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and we have perused the same. It has been stated therein that the princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and not to file any appeal against it. 15. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) issued deficiency memo dated 30-4-2002 asking the petitioner to submit finally assessed Bills of Entry. The petitioner submitted the finally assessed Bills of Entry on 2-5-2002, and on the same day i.e. on 2-5-2002 the cheque of Rs. 45,07,059/- was issued and received by the representative of the petitioner. 16. It is stated in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner became entitled to file claim of refund only after the Bills of Entry of were finally assessed. In the present case, the finally assessed Bills of Entry were submitted on 2-5-2002. 17. Before dealing with the controv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal 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." 18. A perusal of Section 27A shows that if duty is not refunded within three months of the receipt of the application by the concerned officer interest as prescribed has to be paid by the department. 19. In the present case, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs by his order dated 16-2-2001 held that duty @ 25% was payable. This order was set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 7-8-2001. 20. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that from August, 2001 onwards till February, 2002 the petitioner wrote several letters to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Commissioner of Cus....