TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1420
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....other appropriate writs, orders or directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and their subordinates, servants and agents to forthwith pay interest in terms of Section 54 of CGST Act read with Section 16 of the IGST Act, from the date of filing the Shipping Bills to the date of actual refund, in relation to zero rated supply/export of the goods covered by Shipping Bills, the details whereof is mentioned in Exhibit-A." 3. The facts lie in a narrow compass:-It is the petitioner's case that he is carrying business of trading and export of parts and accessories of the motor vehicles and mobile accessories etc. in the name of his proprietary concern Guru Nanak Motor House. During the period between 21 December 2018 to 14 January 2019 the petitioner exported SD Super-Fast Data Sync and Cable and related items under the cover of 30 separate shipping bills. The petitioner contends that he had paid and discharged the amount of IGST at the time of procurement of such goods. All the goods were examined and finally assessed and permitted to be exported. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was entitled to receive re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d declared FOB value of Rs. 7,63,18,299.80 of same goods i.e "Superfast Data Sync Charge Cable" in respect of past nine export shipments under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation(Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rule, 2007 and the same to be re-determined as Rs. 2,67,90,400/- in terms of rule 6 of CVR, 2007. f) Rejected the claimed drawback of Rs. 7,63.182.65/- in respect of past nine export shipments made by the appellant and the same to be restricted to Rs.2,67,864/- as per re-determined FOB value of Rs. 2,67,90,400/- under section 75 of Customs Act, 1962. g) Rejected the MEIS claimed of Rs. 19,86,366/- in respect of past nine export shipments made by the appellant and the same to be restricted to Rs. 5,35,808/- as per re-determined FOB value of Rs. 2,67,90,400/- h) Ordered confiscation of goods covered under past nine export shipments made by the appellant under provisions of section 113(i) of Customs Act, 1962 read with section 50(2) of Customs Act, 1962 and refrained from imposing any redemption fine as the goods were not physically available for confiscation. i) Ordered recovery of excess Drawback of Rs. 7,25,318.62 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l pronouncements. Further, even on merits, the case does not stand on its legs due to weak, haphazard investigation and botched up evidences as has been detailed in the para above. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that on both the counts i.e. legal as well as merits the order passed by the lower authority is not sustainable. 17. I therefore, set aside the Order-in-Original No. 868/2019-20/ADC/NS-II/CAC/JNCH dt. 3.3.2020 passed by the Adjudicating Authority and allow the appeal with consequential relief." 6. The aforesaid order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was assailed by the Department before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). However, the same came to be dismissed on 03 December 2021. The orders passed by the Tribunal were accepted by the Department. Also the goods were subsequently released, is an admitted position. No further steps were taken and/or no investigation is pending against the consignment in question. This position was recorded by the office of the CGST in a communication dated 11 December 2024, addressed to the Additional Commissioner of Customs, (I/C) IGST Refund, by the Joint Commissioner (AE),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that the goods are with the Custom Authorities and because the Custom's Authorities have not permitted the exports, the goods remained with the custom's authorities. He submitted that the Customs Authority may be directed to permit exports and thereafter process the refund. Ms. Thakkar, on instructions states that there are some technical issues regarding permit of exports. She submitted that license of the Custom's House Agent (CHA) or Custom's Broker who had submitted shipping bills had been cancelled. She, therefore, points out that the petitioner will now have to engage some other license custom's broker or Custom House Agent to process the shipping bills and allow the exports. Ms. Thakkar says that no sooner these issues are sorted out, exports will be permitted and refunds processed. 5. Mr. Pathak states that the original bills are still with the custom's authorities. In any event, petitioner will engage some other broker/ Custom House Agent and sort out the issues now pointed out at the earliest. 6. Accordingly, we post this matter for further consideration and compliance on 18 September 2025. In the meanwhile, we expect that the issues now raised reg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on is that if any tax ordered to be refunded under sub-section (5) of section 54 to an applicant is not refunded within sixty days from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of the said provision, interest at such rate not exceeding six per cent, as may be specified in the notification issued by the Government on the recommendations of the Council shall be payable in respect of such refund, for the period of delay beyond sixty days from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such tax, to be computed as prescribed. 13. In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner had made a valid application, as the law would require. The assessment of the shipping bills itself was required to be treated as an application for refund. Ultimately, in the manner as noted hereinabove, the process was required to attain finality before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 76,11,150/-, which was ultimately granted to the petitioner during the pendency of this petition, as recorded by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order recorded hereinabove. Thus, this is a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... working capital of an exporter, and therefore, any delay in the grant of the refund would affect the day-to-day running of the business. The objective of these Circulars is to make Indian businesses internationally competitive; therefore, working capital management is very important. It is keeping in mind this aspect and for ease of doing business that the above-referred Circulars have been issued to complete the investigation within the time frame specified therein." 14. In our opinion, on a conjoint reading of Sections 54 and 56 of the CGST Act, there is a clear obligation on the Department to process the refund application in a time bound manner as prescribed, and in respect of delayed refunds, a liability to pay interest in terms of Section 56 would stand attracted. 15. In the present case, considering the underlying facts on which there is no dispute, in our opinion, the same would unequivocally obligate the designated officer of the Department to comply with the provisions of Section 56. 16. We are however quite astonished at the stand taken on behalf of the respondents in the reply affidavit of Shri. Shashikant M. Borkar, Deputy Commissioner of Customs, inasmuch as....