2020 (11) TMI 19 - HC - Customs

Refund of excess duty paid - no appeal has been preferred by the respondents - HELD THAT - After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing and examining the order, dated 20.12.2013 passed by the second respondent, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served if this writ petition is kept pending. Instead, a direction can be issued to the third respondent to process and settle the refund application, dated 11.02.2014 submitted by the petitioner seeking for refund of a sum of ₹ 3,07,141/- which is the alleged excess duty paid by the petitioner to the respondents, which they are now entitled to refund, as the said excess duty collection made by the respondents under the demand has been set aside by the second respondent under the order in Appeal No. 221/2013 (TTN) dated 20.12.2013. This Court directs the third respondent to consider the refund application of the petitioner, dated 11.02.2014 seeking for the refund of excess duty paid by them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Mandamus for refund of excess duty paid, delay in processing refund application, direction to consider refund application, disclosure of any stay granted against petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount of ?3,07,141 claimed by the petitioner, based on an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals). The petitioner succeeded in an appeal before the second respondent and sought a refund of excess duty paid through a refund application. The respondents informed the petitioner that they intended to file an appeal against the order, causing delay in processing the refund application. The court noted that no appeal had been filed by the respondents till date. After considering the submissions and the order passed by the second respondent, the court decided to issue a direction to the third respondent to process and settle the refund application, as the excess duty collection had been set aside in the appeal order.

The court directed the third respondent to consider the refund application within four weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order and to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with the law. It was clarified that if any stay had been granted against the petitioner by any appellate forum or court, it should be disclosed in the final orders. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely processing of refund applications and ensuring that rightful refunds are granted to the petitioners in accordance with the law.