2019 (8) TMI 628 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - Provisional release of some machinery - printing machine and standard accessories - HELD THAT - The writ petitioner has filed a refund application dated 05.10.2018. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that the second respondent who has to process the refund application has not done so and there has been inaction on the part of the second respondent. Saying so, 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

The High Court of Madras addressed the issue of the clearance of imported machinery, specifically a printing machine and standard accessories, in a case where the writ petitioner had filed a petition for provisional release, which was granted by the court. Subsequently, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) issued an order on the matter, which was acknowledged as final and legally binding. Following this, the writ petitioner filed a refund application in 2018, alleging inaction on the part of the second respondent in processing the application. The court, considering the narrow scope of the matter, directed the second respondent to review the refund application and make a decision within four weeks from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was disposed of with this directive, without imposing any costs.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the clearance of imported machinery, specifically identified as a printing machine and standard accessories. The writ petitioner had initially filed a petition seeking provisional release of the machinery, which was granted by the court subject to certain terms. It was confirmed that the terms set by the court were duly complied with, and the machinery was subsequently provisionally released. The matter progressed further, leading to an order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on the proceedings related to the clearance of the machinery, which was dated 12.06.2017. The court noted that there was no dispute regarding the finality and legal validity of the CESTAT's order.

Following the CESTAT's order, the writ petitioner submitted a refund application in 2018, alleging inaction on the part of the second respondent responsible for processing such applications. The court acknowledged the writ petitioner's claim of delay in the processing of the refund application and the need for the second respondent to take action. The court, considering the straightforward nature of the request and the limited scope of the issue at hand, directed the second respondent to consider the refund application dated 05.10.2018 and issue a decision within a specified time frame of four weeks from the date of the court's order. The writ petition was consequently disposed of with this specific instruction, without any costs being imposed on either party.