2020 (3) TMI 455 - HC - Central Excise

Refund of Pre-deposit - release of Bank Guarantee furnished by the petitioner - Clandestine removal - Counsel for the petitioner states that consequent upon the above order, the petitioner made an application dated 18.02.2019 demanding the refund of the amount as also an application seeking release of the bank guarantee. It is pointed-out that inspite of the applications, till date no action has been taken by the respondent, either rejecting or allowing the applications. HELD THAT - ssue notice returnable 15.05.2020 - List before the Regular Bench on 15th May 2020.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of pre-deposit amount and release of bank guarantee demanded by petitioners following an order by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Analysis:
The petitioners sought a direction for the refund of a pre-deposit amount of ?25 lacs made by petitioner No.1 on two occasions in 1998, along with ?60,000 deposited by petitioner No.2 in 2016, and the release of a bank guarantee worth ?25 lacs. This demand arose from an appeal allowed by CESTAT on 05.10.2018, where the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner were set aside due to lack of credible evidence supporting the charge of clandestine removal. The petitioners also relied on a Circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, which mandates refunds in favor of the appellant within 15 days of the appellate authority's decision, regardless of any appeal by the Department. Despite the petitioner's application for refund and release of the bank guarantee, no action was taken by the respondents, prompting the filing of the writ petition.

The High Court issued notice returnable on 15.05.2020, directing the respondents to respond. The matter was listed before the Regular Bench for further proceedings. The petitioners' claim for the refund of the pre-deposit amount and release of the bank guarantee was founded on the CESTAT's order and the Ministry's Circular, emphasizing the entitlement to refunds upon a favorable appellate decision. The delay in responding to the petitioner's applications led to the writ petition seeking relief from the Court. The legal framework provided by the Circular and the CESTAT's order formed the basis for the petitioner's claim and subsequent legal recourse through the writ petition. The Court's intervention was sought to enforce the entitlement to refunds and release of the bank guarantee as per the established legal principles and administrative guidelines.