2016 (5) TMI 1075 - HC - Central Excise

Eligibility of refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Notification No.102/2007-Cus, dated 14.09.2007, as amended by Notification No.93/2008 dated 1.8.2008 - Sale of goods - Refund rejected as the petitioner has not paid VAT/CST on the said goods - Appeal is pending before CESTAT - Held that - the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeals preferred by the petitioner as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as petitioner is put to financial hardship and because of the competitive market, the non-grant of refund would affect the business of the petitioner. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Writ petition seeking mandamus to dispose of appeals regarding refund claim.
2. Eligibility for refund under specific notification.
3. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner.
4. Rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
5. Delay in disposal of appeal by Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent to dispose of multiple appeals related to refund claims within a reasonable time fixed by the Court. The petitioner, engaged in trading agricultural machinery, imported goods and paid all applicable import duties. They subsequently sold the goods and claimed a refund of a specific duty amounting to ?1,87,68,981 under a particular notification.

2. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing the petitioner's alleged ineligibility due to non-payment of VAT/CST on the imported goods. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was also rejected on the grounds of not paying appropriate duty/tax, leading to financial hardship for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner, aggrieved by the rejection of their appeal, approached the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (first respondent) seeking relief. However, due to the delay in the disposal of the appeal by the first respondent, the petitioner approached the High Court for intervention.

4. The High Court, considering the financial hardship faced by the petitioner and the potential impact on their business due to the non-grant of the refund, directed the first respondent to dispose of the pending appeals within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the court's order. The Court emphasized the importance of early disposal without delving into the merits of the case.

5. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without imposing any costs on either party, ensuring a timely resolution of the appeals and providing relief to the petitioner from the financial burden caused by the delayed refund process.