2019 (7) TMI 969 - HC - Customs

Refund application - provisional release of machinery - HELD THAT - The proceedings regarding clearance of machinery were perused and the same culminated in an order made by CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai - There is no disputation before this Court that the aforesaid order of CESTAT has become final and it has been given legal quietus. The learned counsel made a simple and innocuous prayer requesting to mandamus the second respondent to consider the refund application dated 05.10.2018 made by the writ petitioner and take a decision on the same within a time frame - the second respondent is directed to consider the refund application of the writ petitioner being refund application dated 05.10.2018 and pass an order on the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Clearance of imported machinery
2. Compliance with terms of provisional release
3. Order by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
4. Refund application and inaction by second respondent

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition filed regarding the clearance of imported machinery, specifically a printing machine and standard accessories. The petitioner had previously filed a writ petition which resulted in the provisional release of the machinery as directed by the court. Subsequently, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) issued an order on the proceedings related to the clearance of the machinery, which has been finalized and legally concluded. Following this, the petitioner filed a refund application on 05.10.2018, alleging inaction by the second respondent in processing the application. The petitioner's counsel requested a mandamus directing the second respondent to consider and decide on the refund application within a specified timeframe.

The court noted the narrow scope of the matter at hand, focusing on the refund application and the alleged inaction by the second respondent. In response to the petitioner's prayer, the court directed the second respondent to review the refund application dated 05.10.2018 and issue a decision within four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the court's order. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ petition with the aforementioned directions and without imposing any costs on either party.