TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the Petitioners have been decided. In all these cases, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the refund application of the Petitioners, however, no interest on refund has been granted to them. I(A). Brief Facts in W.P.(C) 10977/2017 and W.P.(C) 11319/2017 3. The brief background giving rise to W.P.(C) 10977/2017 and W.P.(C) 11319/2017 is that the Petitioner-Lava International Ltd., is a company which is inter alia engaged in the business of importing mobile phones, tablets etc. and selling it in India. From 2nd March, 2015 to 16th July, 2015 the Petitioner had imported mobile handsets, including cellular phones, tablets, parts of mobile phone, and had filed 1044 Bills of Exchange (hereinafter, 'BoEs') in total, classifying the imported goods under respective tariff headings. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner in these two writ petitions, that the self-assessment of the BoEs was done by the Petitioner by using the ICEGATE (Indian Customs Electronic Commerce/Electronic Data interchange (EC/EDI) Gateway) portal, an e-commerce portal of the Central Board of Excise & Customs wherein there was no option provided for the Petitioner to avail the exemption in terms of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the order of the CESTAT, the Adjudicating Authority i.e, Commissioner should proceed with the remand with utmost expedition and complete the hearing and render the decision in accordance with the above settled law within two weeks. It is directed accordingly. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms. All rights and contentions of the parties, including the petitioner's right to move an application under Section 27 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are reserved." 9. Following the said order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) 2307/2017, the Petitioner's case is that de-novo adjudication was conducted and an order was passed on 25th March, 2017, granting refund to the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner filed an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking refund of the excess Customs Duty paid by it, along with interest from the date of the 844 BoEs. The said application has been decided vide the impugned order dated 13th April, 2017 wherein the refund has been granted to the Petitioner, however, interest on such refund has not been allowed. The Adjudicating Authority, after examining the facts, the records on various aspects i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 607 (SC), the petitioner's claim has to succeed. A direction is issued to the respondents to process the refund application and pass appropriate orders having regard to the materials placed provided it is filed within two weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in these terms. No costs." 13. In pursuance to the order of this Court dated 30th November, 2016, the Petitioner filed an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking refund of the excess Customs Duty paid by it, along with interest from the date of the 200 BoEs. The said application has been decided vide the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2017, wherein the refund has been granted to the Petitioner, however, interest on such refund has not been allowed. In the said impugned order dated 3rd March, 2017, it has been held as under: "ORDER In view of the above, I sanction the refund claim of Rs. 18,87,85,533/- (Rupees Eighteen Crore Eighty-Seven Lacs Eighty-Five Thousand Five Hundred Thirty-Three Only) filed by M/s Lava International Ltd. A-56, Sector-64, Noida-201301, order is to be credited to account of M/s Lava International Ltd. in terms of provisions o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment of the BoEs and the last communication was sent on 24th January 2022. However, the Customs Department did not re-assess the same during the said period. Thereafter, the BoEs were finally re-assessed vide Order-in-Original dated 8th June, 2022, in respect of 1216 Bills of Entry, and the Order-in-Original dated 15th June, 2022, in respect of 176 Bills of Entry, both orders-in-original being the subject matter of W.P.(C) 1225/2024. 19. Further to the above orders, the said Petitioner had filed 17 refund applications on 13th October, 2022 and 17th October, 2022, for the period between February, 2014 to July, 2015. The said applications filed under Section 27(1)(a)/27(1)(b) read with Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, inter alia, had sought refund of the excess amount paid along with interest from the date of payment. 20. It is stated that during the pendency of the said refund applications, the appeal of the Customs Department against the Orders-in-Original dated 8th June, 2022 and 15th June, 2022 came to be rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated 6th April, 2023. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under: "6.3.2 It must be noted that in case of M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d applications. The relevant portion of one of the impugned orders reads as under: "20. Now I proceed to examine the claim with respect to time i.e. whether the refund claim submitted by the applicant is well within time and is not hit by bar of limitation to proceed further in the matter. The applicant has filed refund claim application on 17.10.2022 against the excess additional customs duty ('CVD') paid by them during the period from 01.08.2014 to 31.08.2014. I find that the Order-in-Original No. 63/2022-23/PK/DC/GR-5A/ACC-Import was passed on 07.06.2022 by which the Bills of Entry were reassessed. I find that Section 27 (IB) provides a time limit of one year from date of reassessment order. 21. Since the amount of CVD claimed as refund in the present case is arising consequently from the order of reassessment, dated 07.06.2022 and refund application is filed on 17.10.2022 i.e. within one year of such reassessment order. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the refund claim amounting to Rs. 12,15,85,871/- is not hit by the bar of limitation. 26. In view of above noted facts I am of considered view that the applicant has been able to disch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.06.2023 29.08.2023 Rs. 5,91,44,817/- (Rs. 5,20,70,702 + Rs. 70,74,115) W.P. (C) 1225/2024 Jaina Marketing & Associates 18.02.2014 to 18.02.2015 and 09.03.2015 To 16.07.2015 21.04.2015 (1^st Application for re-assessment) 07.06.2022 & 15.06.2022 17.10.2022 16.8.2023, 23.8.2023, 25.8.2023, 30.8.2023 and 31.08.2023 Rs. 1,45,81,14,998 (Rs. 12,15,85,871/- + Rs.12,74,26,432/- + Rs. 14,22,07,973/- + Rs. 14,38,64,540/- + Rs. 11,48,04,596/- + Rs. 11,63,92,649/- + Rs. 6,20,71,349/- + Rs. 6,95,61,918/- + Rs. 7,74,88,200/- + Rs. 6,64,24,966/- + Rs. 3,33,33,564/- + Rs. 9,45,47,770/- + Rs. 96,46,488/- + Rs. 6,86,48,390/- + Rs. 6,36,79,049/- + Rs. 7,65,26,738/- + Rs. 6,99,04,502/-) W.P.(C) 1297/2024 M/s Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. 18.02.2014 to 18.02.2015 and 1.03.2015 To 31.03.2015 15.05.2015 (1^st Application for re-assessment) 14.06.2022 14.11.2022 16.8.2023, 21.8.2023, 28.8.2023 and 02.09.2023 Rs. 1,34,17,50,618.75 (Rs. 14,78,82,566/- + Rs. 11,99,09,033/- + Rs. 12,99,15,112/- + Rs. 10,60,59,334/- + Rs. 8,83,52,246/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is submitted that the Petitioner was forced to file an appeal as opposed to filing a refund application because of the stand taken by the Customs Department that no refund claim can be filed directly by the Petitioner. II(B). Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 1225/2024, W.P.(C) 1291/2024, W.P.(C) 1297/2024, and W.P.(C) 1325/2024: 33. Ms. Asha Jain Madan, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner appearing in the said four matters, has submitted the amount with respect to the BoEs has been retained by the Customs Department for more than nine years in an illegal manner. 34. It is also submitted that the decision in SRF Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (supra) decision merely reiterated the law in the judgment dated 26th March, 2015. The same was, however, also following the earlier decisions of Thermax (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, (1992) 4 SCC 440 and other well-established decisions. Thus, after 26th March, 2015 there was no justification for the Customs Department to collect the customs duty and not to refund the same. 35. The Petitioners' case is that they moved for re-assessment because of the decision in ITC Limited vs. Commissioner of Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and there is a claim for interest, interest would be liable to be paid. Reliance is also made on the following judgments: • Om Gems and Jewellery v. Principal Commissioner, Directorate of International Customs, Free Trade Agreements (FTA) Cell New Delhi and Others [2023 SCC Online Del 7932] • Union of India vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [(2014) 6 SCC 335] • G.L. Jain v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Ors. [2012 5CC OnLine Del 445] • Civil Appeals Nos. 2995-96/2022 titled Union of India & Ors. vs. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [(2022) 9 SCC 341] • South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of M.P. (2003) 8 SCC 648 41. It is further stated that the claim of interest on behalf of the Petitioners is from the date of deposit. In fact, Ms. Madan, ld. Counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed by the Customs Department, where it is admitted by the Department that there was some clarity after the SRF Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (supra) decision. Thus, if that is so, the worst position for the Petitioners would be to be entitled to interest from the date of SRF Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be refunded arises only when the refund claim is not paid within 03 months from filing the claim. However, it is the stand of Respondent No. 2 that it is clearly held in the impugned orders that the refund has been sanctioned within a period of three months from the date of receipt of applications. In view of the above findings of the Deputy Commissioner (refund) in the impugned orders, the Petitioner is not entitled to interest on the amount of duty refunded in both the cases. Mr Ramachandran, ld. Counsel also relies upon the following decisions in support of his submissions: (i) Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) (ii) Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2000) 6 SCC 650 (iii) ITC Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, (2019) 17 SCC 46 48. It is also submitted on behalf of Respondent No. 2 that it is an admitted fact that the Petitioner had self-assessed the BoEs and paid duty accordingly. The Petitioner's refund claim was processed and sanctioned as per the existing law under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, it is not a case wher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the following four decisions: * Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur vs. Flock (India) PVt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.) * Priya Blue Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) * ITC Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata, 2019 SCC Online SC 1227 * Lava International Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors. High Court of Delhi-W.P. (C) 8752/2017 Order dated 21.07.2023 * Union of India vs. Ind-Swift Laboratories Limited (2011) 4 SCC 635. 54. According to ld. Counsel, the Petitioner in 10977/2017 and W.P.(C) 11319/2017 ought to have first gotten the re-assessment done before seeking refund. II(D). Per Contra: Submissions on behalf of Deputy Commissioner (Refund) in W.P.(C) 1225/2024, W.P.(C) 1291/2024, W.P.(C) 1297/2024, and W.P.(C) 1325/2024: 55. Ms. Anushree Narain, ld. Counsel appearing for the Customs Department in W.P.(C) 1225/2024, W.P.(C) 1291/2024, W.P.(C) 1297/2024, and W.P.(C) 1325/2024 submits that under the Customs Act, 1962, there is no refund permissible except as per Section 27 and 27 (A) thereof. She relies upon Section 27(2) and 27(3), as also upon the explanation in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....), Bangalore, 2016 (344) ELT 148 (Kar.) * Practice Strategic Communications India P. Ltd. v. CST Domlur, 2016(344) ELT 148 (Kar.) * JCB India Ltd v. Union of India, 2014 (301) ELT 209 (P&H) 62. It is also the case of the Petitioner that they were forced to pay additional duty under protest, as the EDI system did not allow filing of the BoEs claiming concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 12/2012-CE. As the EDI system was not allowing the Petitioner to file the BoEs with CVD 1%, the Petitioner requested permission to file manual BoEs till the time EDI system was rectified for enabling on-line filing under the above notification entry. 63. However, since the abovementioned request was not accepted, the Petitioner was forced to file the BoEs through the EDI system on payment of CVD at 12.5% instead of 1% for the interim period, under protest. 64. Thus, it is their case that if the Petitioner was allowed to claim the exemption at the outset or if it was allowed to file manual BoEs, then it would not have had to pay the amount in question. The amount was collected by the Respondents without any authority of law. Thus, under such facts and circumstanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vailing Duty (hereinafter 'CVD') in terms of Sections 3(1) and 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 70. It is the case of the Petitioners that the CVD was paid under protest, however, this position is disputed by the Customs Department. 71. According to the Petitioners, the CVD payable was only 1% at concessional rates and hence, the entire remaining amount of 11.5% or 5% paid as CVD, along with interest was liable to be refunded to the Petitioners. 72. The payment made under the various BoEs was on the basis of self-assessment done by the Petitioners themselves and there were no separate assessment orders which were passed. The Petitioners in few of the cases then challenged these self-assessed BoEs and sought setting aside of the same before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, which was rejected vide the impugned orders. The CESTAT had remanded the matters to the Adjudicating Authority. 73. The Adjudicating Authority then re-assessed, finalised the BoEs and granted exemption, allowing the benefit of concessional rate of duty to the Petitioners. Pursuant to the said orders, the Petitioners filed a request for refund of excess CVD and other consequential duties, along....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclusion that when the credit under the Cenvat Rules is not admissible to the appellant, question of fulfilling the aforesaid condition does not arise. In holding so, it followed the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Ashok Traders v. Union of India [(1987) 32 ELT 262 (Bom)], wherein the Bombay High Court had held that "it is impossible to imagine a case where in respect of raw naphtha used in HDPE in the foreign country, Central excise duty leviable under the Indian Law can be levied or paid." Thus, Cegat found that only those conditions could be satisfied which were possible of satisfaction and the condition which was not possible of satisfaction had to be treated as not satisfied. 6. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid reasoning is no longer good law after the judgment of this Court in Thermax (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [(1992) 4 SCC 440], which was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(1999) 5 SCC 15]. 7. In a recent judgment pronounced by this very Bench in Aidek Tourism Services (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs [(2015) 7 SCC 429], the principle which was laid down in Thermax (P) Ltd. [(1992) 4 SCC 440] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasis supplied.]." 8. We are of the opinion that on the facts of these cases, these appeals are squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments. We accordingly hold that the appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/02. The appeals are allowed and the demand of CVD raised by the respondent authorities is set aside. 82. Since the interpretation of the Customs Department was rejected by the Supreme Court in the abovesaid case, hence, the case of the Petitioner is that they were clearly covered by the judgement in SRF Ltd. (supra) and ought to have been extended the benefit thereof. 83. In effect, therefore, the case of the Petitioners is that though there was no doubt even prior to the decision in SRF Ltd. (supra) that the Petitioners need not have deposited CVD, at the least, post the decision in SRF Ltd. (supra) on 26th March, 2015 they were entitled to the exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-CE. Thus, CVD having been wrongly deposited interest is liable to be granted on the refund amounts. 84. The further case of Petitioners is that the ICEGATE portal, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n reviewed or modified in appeal such further order will obviously be taken into account. In other words, under Section 27 of the Act, as it now stands, it is not open to an authority to refuse to consider the application for refund only because no appeal has been filed against the assessment order, if there is one. 13. As far as the present case is concerned, there was indeed no assessment order as such passed by the customs authorities. Although under Section 2 (ii) of the Act, the word 'assessment' includes a self-assessment, the clearance of the goods upon filing of the B/E and payment of duty is not per se an 'assessment order' in the context of Section 27(1)(i) as it stood prior to 8th April 2011, particularly if such duty has not been paid under protest. In any event, after 8th April 2011, as noticed hereinbefore, as long as customs duty or interest has been paid or borne by a person, a claim for refund made by such person under Section 27(1) of the Act as it now stands, will have to be entertained and an order passed thereon by the authority concerned even where an order of assessment may not have reviewed or modified in appeal. 14. The Assistant C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Supreme Court had already declared the law in the case of M/s SRF Limited v Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2015 (14) SCC 596 in terms of which it was eligible for availing the concessional rate of CVD at 1% in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (as amended from time to time). The benefit of concessional rate was available subject to fulfilment of condition No.16 of the Notification which provided that the assessee should not have taken credit in respect of the goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 [hereafter "the Credit Rules"] in respect of the inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of these goods. Before the law was declared by the Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited (supra), the Revenue was consistently denying the benefit of the notification to assessees on the ground that no CENVAT Credit on inputs and capital goods was admissible under the Credit Rules to the assessee for manufacturing of mobile phones as the goods were not manufactured in India but were imported, therefore, condition No. 16 was not fulfilled as only those conditions could be satisfied which were capable of satisfaction. 6. It is submitted that following th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by relevant documents. It is submitted that the Respondents had issued various deficiency memoranda to the Petitioner (its office letters dated 29.09.2016, 26.10.2016 and 11.11.2016). It is submitted that in its letter of 06.10.2016 the petitioner submitted detailed additional submissions and had disputed the fact that the claim was time barred under Section 27 of the Act. It was stated inter-alia as under: "With respect to the eligibility of refund, we would like to submit that the Company has claimed refund of the amount deposited in excess of the actual duty payable on import of mobile phones. The amount paid in excess is not under any of the provisions of the Act and cannot be termed as 'duty' paid or payable under this Act. Thus, provisions of Section 27 of Act shall not be applicable in the instant case. In this respect, we would like to draw reference from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. I. T.C. Limited, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 326, wherein it has been held that any money which is realized in excess of what is permissible in law would be a realization made outside the provisions of the Act. Thus, any amount p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facture of Nylon Filament Yarn or Polypropylene Multifilament Yarn of 210 deniers with tolerance of 6 per cent. The importer appealed; the Supreme Court in its judgment relied on AIDEK (supra) as well as Thermax (supra). In AIDEK (supra), it was held that: "15. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment in Thermax Private Limited (supra) was relied upon by this Court in Hyderabad Industries Ltd. (supra) while interpreting Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act itself; albeit in somewhat different context. However, the manner in which the issue was dealt with lends support to the case of the assessee herein. In that case, the court noted that Section 3(1) of the Tariff Act provides for levy of an additional duty. The duty is, in other words, in addition to the customs duty leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act read with Section 2 of the Tariff Act. The explanation to Section 3 has two limbs. The first limb clarifies that the duty chargeable under Section 3(1) would be the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India. The condition precedent for levy of additional duty thus contemplated by the explanation deals with the situation whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d (supra) had ruled in principle that import implied a deemed manufacture, without any corresponding obligation on the part of the importer to have availed CENVAT credit. As such, the amount claimed was not duty and could not have been recovered by the Customs authorities in the first instance, given the declaration of law in SRF Limited (supra). Therefore, they cannot now seek shelter under Section 27 (3) to resist a legitimate refund claim." 88. Thus, both, in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra) and in Telecare Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Coordinate Benches of this Court held that the refund applications filed by the Petitioners deserved to be entertained and had accordingly directed the Adjudicating Authorities to pass fresh orders on the refund applications. 89. This court would have been bound by these decisions rendered under similar circumstances by the Coordinate Benches, however, the decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. (supra) was thereafter challenged before the Supreme Court in a batch of cases in which the lead matter was ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2019 SCC Online SC 1227). 90. In ITC Limited (supra), the Supreme Court was conside....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings at all. Apart from that, there are other conditions which are to be satisfied for claiming exemption, as provided in the exemption notification. Existence of those exigencies is also to be proved which cannot be adjudicated within the scope of provisions as to refund. While processing a refund application, re-assessment is not permitted nor conditions of exemption can be adjudicated. Re-assessment is permitted only under Section 17(3)(4) and (5) of the amended provisions. Similar was the position prior to the amendment. It will virtually amount to an order of assessment or re-assessment in case the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs while dealing with refund application is permitted to adjudicate upon the entire issue which cannot be done in the ken of the refund provisions under Section 27. In Hero Cycles Ltd. v. Union of India 2009 (240) ELT 490 (Bom.) though the High Court interfered to direct the entertainment of refund application of the duty paid under the mistake of law. However, it was observed that amendment to the original order of assessment is necessary as the relief for a refund of claim is not available as held by this Court in Priya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the words "in pursuance of an Order of Assessment" necessarily imply that a claim for refund can be made without challenging the Assessment in an Appeal. It is submitted that if the assessment is not correct, a party could file a claim for refund and the correctness of the Assessment Order can be examined whilst considering the claim for refund. It was submitted that the wording of Section 27, particularly, the provisions regarding filing of a claim for refund within the period of 1 year or 6 months also showed that a claim for refund could be made even though no Appeal had been filed against the Assessment Order. It was submitted that if a claim for refund could only be made after an Appeal was filed by the party, then the provisions regarding filing of a claim within 1 year or 6 months would become redundant as the Appeal proceedings would never be over within that period. It was submitted that in the claim for refund the party could take up the contention that the Order of Assessment was not correct and could claim refund on that basis even without filing an Appeal. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. Just such a contention has been negatived by this Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date of payment of such duty or interest: xxx xxx (1A) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 28C) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty or interest, in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the incidence of such duty or interest, has not been passed on by him to any other person. 96. It is also noted that various judgments have upheld the requirement of payment of interest on refunds. The judgements of the Supreme Court and various High Courts considered interest as nothing more but compensation. 97. For instance, in Union of India through Director of Income Tax v. M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. 2014 (6) SCC 335, the Supreme Court, while considering a matter under the Income Tax regime, held that refunds have to be accompanied with interest as a matter of course. Similar views have also been expressed in the context of GST regime, wherein in case of GST refunds, interest has been granted. 98. Further, in Union of India versus Metal Distributors Ltd. 1992 (60) E.L.T. 196 (Bom.), the B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the petitioner had been held liable to pay duty in excess of what was required. ITC Limited bids us to hold that a claim for refund would sustain only if it be the outcome of an adjudication which ultimately finds that the assessee was forced or compelled to pay duty over and above what was due under the Act. While it is true that the order of 03 February 2017 has not been questioned or assailed by the respondents, we are faced with the situation of whether a prerogative writ should issue despite the petitioner being liable to be viewed as being ineligible to the grant of refund in light of ITC Limited. 12. We find that the ends of justice would warrant the prayer for interest being refused since substantial justice clearly appears to have been meted out to the petitioner. The Court bears in mind that the issuance of a writ is essentially discretionary. A writ would not issue where the same may lead to or perpetuate an illegality or the conferral of a benefit which is otherwise unsustainable or result in the grant of relief which would be unjustified. The ends of justice would thus warrant the order impugned being left untouched and the prayer for interest being negat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order. If this position is accepted then the provisions for adjudication in the Act and the Rules, the provision for appeal in the Act and the Rules will lose their relevance and the entire exercise will be rendered redundant. This position, in our view, will run counter to the scheme of the Act and will introduce an element of uncertainty in the entire process of levy and collection of excise duty. Such a position cannot be countenanced. The view taken by us also gain support from the provision in sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 wherein it is laid down that where as a result of any order passed in appeal or revision under the Act, refund of any duty becomes due to any person, the proper officer, may refund the amount to such person without his having to make any claim in that behalf. The provision indicates the importance attached to an order of the appellate or revisional authority under the Act. Therefore, an order which is appealable under the Act is not challenged then the order is not liable to be questioned and the matter is not to be reopened in a proceeding for refund which, if we may term it so, is in the natu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st." 112. Hence, considering that the said position regarding re-assessment has been accepted by the Commissioner (Refunds) while passing the impugned order dated 13th April, 2017, the Court is refraining from interfering with the same. 113. On the other hand, in W.P.(C) 11319/2017, the Petitioner had challenged the order dated 30th October, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) directly before this Court in W.P.(C) 10513/2016. In the said writ petition, this Court directly issued a direction to the Customs Department to process the refund application filed by the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Hence, the Petitioner directly filed an application for refund in the said case, without any formal re-assessment of its BoEs. 114. In the present two cases, the decision in ITC Ltd. (supra) was not rendered when the applications for re-assessment were actually filed. In fact, in these two cases, the fresh adjudication was to be conducted or refunds were to be processed in terms of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court, as stated above. 115. Thereafter, the refunds have been granted in both the matters. In W.P. (C) 10977/2017, the fresh adjudication was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4th June, 2022, 14th June, 2022 & 15th June, 2022. For instance, the order for reassessment dated 7th June, 2022 in W.P.(C) 1225/2024 was passed in the following terms: "ORDER i. I order for amendment of the bills of entry as mentioned in Annexure-1 to the importer's self-declaration dated 04.06.2022, to add the benefit of S.no. 263A(ii) of the Notification no. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 in respect of the goods declared as mobile phones, under Section 149 read with Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962; and for consequent re-assessment under Section 17(4) read with section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962." 120. Similar orders of re-assessment have been passed in all the four cases. Upon re-assessment, multiple refund applications were filed by the Petitioners between 2022-2023 in these four cases with respect to their respective BoEs, requesting inter-alia for refund of excess amount collected along with consequential relief, including interest from the date of payment. 121. In the meantime, appeals were filed by the Customs Department challenging the orders dated 8th June, 2022, 14th June, 2022, 14th June, 2022 & 15th June, 2022. The said appeals were decided ....