TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the Appellant's claim for interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 on delayed refund of customs duty. The Appellant, engaged in petroleum drilling operations, imported 28 consignments of equipment and spares during July 2002 to November 2002 for use in petroleum operations under a contract with ONGC, availing Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 214), subject to production of Essentiality Certificates (ECs) from the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH). As the ECs were not initially issued, the goods were cleared on payment of duty under protest and the Appellant approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which by order dated 11.03.2003 directed Customs authorities to consider the refund claims after issua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l. 2. The Ld. Advocate Mr. J.C. Patel,, appeared on behalf of the Appellant and advanced detailed submissions in support of the Appeal and the Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. Anoop Singh appeared for the Revenue and defended the Impugned Order. 3. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant made the following submissions which are summarized as below: - 3.1 The refund applications were filed during January-March 2003, whereas the refund was sanctioned only on 26.11.2015, after a delay of more than 12 years. 3.2 It was contended that Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates payment of interest if refund is not granted within three months from the date of receipt of refund application, irrespective of whether the refun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and challans were not produced in certain cases and indemnity bonds were submitted later, and therefore the refund applications could be treated as complete only at a later stage. 5. We have heard the Rival submissions of both the sides. We have also perused the appeal records, Orders-in-Original, Order-in-Appeal, this Tribunal order in Appellants own case, written submissions placed on record, the relevant statutory provisions of the Customs Act 1962 as well as the judicial precedents cited by both sides. 6. Upon such consideration, the following issues arise for our determination as to: - i. Whether interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 is payable from the expiry of three months from the date of original refu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... after the expiry of three months till the date of refund. The language of the statute leaves no discretion with the authorities once the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. 7.3 The principal defence of the Revenue, both before the lower authorities and before us, is that since the refund claims were initially rejected by the adjudicating authority in 2005-06 and refund was granted only after the matter was remanded by this Tribunal in 2015, the refund became "due" only after the appellate order and, therefore, interest cannot be computed from 2003. We find this reasoning to be wholly untenable and directly contrary to the settled position of law. 7.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India - ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein it was held that in the peculiar facts of the case, especially in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the refund could not be denied for want of appeal against assessment. Therefore, the delay in granting refund was entirely attributable to the Department and not to any lapse on the part of the Appellant. 7.7 The Revenue has also sought to justify denial of interest by referring to reassessment of Bills of Entry and submission of indemnity bonds. We are unable to accept this contention. As held by the Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar v. Reliance Industries Ltd. - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 621 (Tri.-Ahmd.), procedural requirements or internal departmental processes cannot override the statutory mandat....