1986 (12) TMI 34 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in refunding excess duty by the Department.
2. Department's failure to comply with the directions of the Appellate Collector.
3. Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for refund and enforcement of the Collector's order.
4. Tribunal's refusal to grant stay on the Collector's order.
5. Petitioner's request for refund based on calculations.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners had applied for registration of a contract to avail the benefit of a specific notification regarding duty payment on imported goods. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the application, but the Collector of Customs (Appeals) later allowed the appeal directing re-assessment of customs duty. The Department failed to act on this decision, leading to the petition filed by the importers on the grounds of inaction by the respondents.

2. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Department to assess the imported consignments as per the Collector's order and refund the excess duty paid. Despite the Division Bench's order to await the Tribunal's final decision, the Department filed an appeal after the limitation period, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also refused to grant a stay on the Collector's order, emphasizing the Department's obligation to comply with the appellate authority's directions.

3. The Court found it necessary to issue a writ directing the Department to enforce the Collector's order and refund the excess amount to the petitioners within two weeks. The Department was instructed to base the refund on the calculations provided by the petitioners. If the Department's appeal to the Tribunal succeeded, the petitioners agreed to refund the amount paid by the Department, subject to their right to challenge the Tribunal's decision in the appropriate forum.

4. Consequently, the Court made the rule absolute, ordering the Department to comply with the Collector's order within the specified timeframe. Failure to refund within two weeks would result in the Department paying interest on the refund amount at a rate of 15% per annum until the actual refund date. Additionally, the respondents were directed to bear the costs of the petition, emphasizing the Department's obligation to promptly execute the refund as directed by the appellate authority.