TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 591
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led before this Tribunal, as appellant claims to have been entitled to get interest from three months after filing of refund applications in June 2004. 2. Factual backdrop of this case dates back to 2003 when appellant filed seventeen Bills of Entry for clearance of its imported PVC quoted cloth, that was being cleared upon payment of basic customs duty @ 25% plus CVD @ 16% plus GSI (*Additional duties of excise on goods of special importance) @ 5% plus SAD @ 0% with applicable cess and as they came to know that in terms of Notification NO. 7/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, such GSI duty @ 5% was not leviable, appellant importer filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) against assessment of seventeen Bills of Entry that was decided in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly transfer the same to the concerned Cell. On 21.05.2009, they received a Deficiency Memo having reference of another deficiency memo stated to have been issued on 21.02.2009 that could not be complied as deficiency memo contained instructions to produce re-assessment of Bills of Entry etc., which were initiated by the Revenue at their end and not by the appellant. After lapse of three years, again another Deficiency Memo dated 26.12.2012 was issued that was complied with upon production of all documents on dated 18.02.2013 including C.A. Certificate after which appellant followed up on several occasions for grant of refund with interest by writing letters (dated 19.12.2015 to the Commissioner and to the Chief Commissioner on dated 18.05.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Commissioner of Customs asking for production of original applications but the same was no more available with the appellant since already submitted to the Refund Sanctioning Authority. She further submitted that after keeping quiet for more than three years upto 2007 and in response to every reminder sent to them, Respondent Department was sending Deficiency Memos at intervals on dated 21.05.2009, 26-122012, 21.09.2016 at almost three years interval and ultimate Deficiency Memo that was sent eight months thereafter on 31.05.2017 speaks volume about the negligent manner in which appellants refund applications were handled by the Department and disregarding the express provision available in the Statute as contained in para 27A of the Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es in the application can be sought for removal from the assessee within two days of filing of such application before the Revenue and if still discrepancy was there, it can proceed with the adjudication and rejection of application for refund but it cannot by any stretch of imagination, carry the same beyond three months when it is required to be concluded within three months for which the Notification issued by Customs vide Notification No. 35/95-ST (NT) dated 26.05.2019 containing explanation that for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 27A of the Act, the applications shall be deemed to have been received on the date on which completed applications, as acknowledged by the a proper officer, has been made is of no consequence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....importantly this is not an appeal in which legality of sanction of the refund was questioned since legality of not granting interest from the relevant date is in dispute, to be determined by this forum. 4. In response to such submission Ld. Authorised Representative Mr. L.B.D' Coasta, submitted that appellant was granted interest when it was due for such grant of interest, as could be noticed from the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the observation made in the refund applications that it becomes complete only when appellant submitted Chartered Accountant's certificate on 20.12.2017 as well as accepted revised refund computation, is not required to be interfered by this Tribunal since it had earlier sought for refund of 48.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er refund, as sought was granted, nor any personal hearing was taken up to justify not granting of such refund to the appellant despite the fact that Section 27A of the Customs Act commands that if any duty, not ordered to be refunded under Section 27A(2) of the Customs Act, to the applicant within three months of receipt of its application, there shall be paid to the applicant, interest at the rate as Central Government may specify on or from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of that duty. Therefore, without the aid of any judicial precedent also, under the Statutory Provision, Respondent Commissioner was duty bound to pay the interest three months after 0....