9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1440 - HC - CustomsRefund of excess fine and penalty paid - time limit for disposal of revision - application for refund were not processed, later on the petitioners have been served with Notices from the Revisional Authority viz. Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, stating that the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, has preferred Revision Petitions as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs - Held that - no time limit is fixed for disposal of the Revision Applications filed by the Central Government, the third respondent has to necessarily consider and pass orders on the petitioners Applications dated 10.03.2016 - there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the Refund Applications filed by the petitioners dated 10.03.2016, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of petitionerx.
Issues:
1. Refund of fine and penalty paid by petitioners pursuant to Order in Original dated 30.04.2015. 2. Reduction of fine and penalty by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 3. Delay in processing refund Applications by the third respondent. 4. Revision Petitions filed by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against orders of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 5. Lack of time limit for disposal of Revision Petitions by Central Government. Analysis: 1. The petitioners filed Writ Petitions seeking a refund of the fine and penalty paid as per the Order in Original dated 30.04.2015. The Order had allowed re-export of gold bars on payment of a fine, which the petitioners complied with on 29.07.2015. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the fine and penalty amounts, leading the petitioners to apply for a refund of the excess paid amounts. 2. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) found the redemption fine disproportionate to the profit margin and reduced it to &8377; 15,00,000/- along with reducing the penalties imposed on the petitioners. Following this decision, the petitioners submitted refund Applications on 10.03.2016 to recover the excess amounts paid. However, there was a delay in processing these Applications by the third respondent, causing the petitioners to approach the Court for relief. 3. Despite the petitioners' belief that their refund Applications were being processed, no action was taken for several months. Meanwhile, the petitioners received Notices from the Revisional Authority indicating that Revision Petitions had been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against the orders of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), adding to the complexity of the situation. 4. The Court noted that the counter affidavits filed by the respondents focused on the merits of the case, which was not appropriate given the current status where the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) was in effect. The lack of clarity on the status of the Revision Petitions and the absence of a fixed time limit for their disposal raised concerns regarding the delay in resolving the matter. 5. In light of the circumstances, the Court directed the third respondent to consider the refund Applications filed by the petitioners dated 10.03.2016. The third respondent was instructed to evaluate the Applications, provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, and issue orders based on merits and in accordance with the law within four weeks from the date of receiving the Court's order, emphasizing the need for a timely resolution without imposing any costs on the petitioners.
|
