AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been filed to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to pay the 2nd petitioner interest @ 15% p.a., from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund of the amount of Rs. 74,74,533/- and Rs. 2,04,999/- deposited by the 2nd petitioner through M/s MMTC Ltd., by way of TR-6 challan Nos.15995 and 15996, dt.17.01.2017. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is engaged in the business of gold and gold jewellery and dealing with export of gold ornaments and also sales locally. The petitioner alleged to have purchased gold bullion on payment of cost of bullion gold and that M/s MMTC Ltd., is the nominated authorized agency appointed by the Reserve Bank of India for importing gold fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of alleged diversion of 25 kgs of duty free gold purchased without payment of customs duty for selling the same in the local market and exporting the jewellery out of the locally purchased gold. The said amounts deposited by the MMTC was appropriated by the authorities and challenging the order dt.12.02.2020, passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has filed appeals before the Hon'ble Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the CESTAT'), Hyderabad vide customs appeal No.30229 and 30230 of 2021 and that the said appeals were preferred by the petitioner, and MMTC was not party to the said appeal and seeking a direction to the MMTC to join as appellant, a writ petition was filed vide W.P.No. 15987 of 2023 by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appeals". 6. Drawing a clue from the judgment of the learned CESTAT, the petitioners contend that as the amounts are paid by the petitioners to the MMTC, they are entitled for refund of the said amounts and that though specific requests have been filed before the respondents-authorities, the respondents are not paying the said amounts, as such they are constrained to file the present writ petition before this Court. 7. Heard the 1st petitioner (party-in-person), Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC for respondent No. 2, and perused the material on record. 8. It is contended by the 1st petitioner (party-in-perso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pune & others (2006) 2 SCC 508, the 1st petitioner submits that when the amounts are wrongfully retained by the authorities for a prolonged period, the assessee is entitled not only to refund but also to interest/compensation for such delay. It is thus contended that the petitioners are entitled to the amounts deposited and interest thereon from the date of deposit till the date of actual refund. 12. Per contra, Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No. 1, contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. It is further contended that the amounts in question were admittedly deposited by M/s MMTC Ltd., and the said entity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty may claim refund by filing an appropriate application before the competent authority and that the learned CESTAT has not issued any direction to the respondents to directly refund the amounts to the petitioners. 15. It is also contended that the petitioners have not placed any material on record to show that a proper refund application in accordance with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been filed and considered by the competent authority. In the absence of such statutory compliance, the claim for interest or compensation from the date of deposit till the date of payment cannot be entertained in the present writ proceedings. It is further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supre....