2016 (12) TMI 1717 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - Consequent upon the fulfilment of the obligation, the petitioner requested, vide letter dated 28.5.2003 that the bank guarantee be discharged - rejection of refund on the ground of time bar - Section 27 of the Customs Act - Held that - The sequence of dates and events detailed would show that the assessee had made a request for release of Bank Guarantee as early as in 2003 after obtaining the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, confirming the position that the export obligation has been duly complied with. However, it is only on 22.3.2007 that the Bank Guarantee was discharged by the Department, for reasons best known to them - No explanation is offered by the Revenue as to what were the circumstances that occasioned the delay of more than eight years. The Appellant has been unfairly deprived of the amount of ₹ 4,07,245/- from 2007 onwards till the order of the learned Single Judge on 22.7.2015 directing the grant of refund. The delay in granting refund was inordinate, unjustified and wholly unacceptable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2015 in W.P.No.15669 of 2014.
2. Exporter claiming benefit under Zero duty Concessional Scheme.
3. Bank Guarantee furnished for duty benefit.
4. Discharge of export obligation and subsequent refund claim.
5. Rejection of refund application by Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
6. Appeal against rejection and change of address notification.
7. Interpretation of Bank Guarantee as security in lieu of duty.
8. Claim for refund and interest entitlement.
9. Comparison with previous judgments.
10. Compensation for inordinate delay in grant of refund.

Analysis:
1. The writ appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2015 in W.P.No.15669 of 2014. The assessee, an exporter, sought benefit under the Zero duty Concessional Scheme and furnished a Bank Guarantee for duty benefit. The export obligation was discharged, and a refund claim was made, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs citing a time limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

2. Despite an appeal and change of address notification, the refund rejection stood. The Court noted the settled legal position regarding Bank Guarantee as security in lieu of duty, citing previous judgments like Commissioner of Customs Vs. M/s. Jraj Exports. The delay in granting the refund was highlighted, leading to the claim for compensation for the inordinate delay.

3. The Court emphasized the sequence of events, including the discharge of Bank Guarantee in 2007 after a request made in 2003. The rejection of the refund application disregarded the legal precedent set by the Court. The Revenue failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, causing prejudice to the appellant.

4. Considering the unjustified delay, the Court directed the respondent to pay compensation of &8377; 2,00,000 as redress for the inordinate delay in granting the refund. The writ appeal was allowed in part, with no costs imposed. The judgment clarified the distinction between interest and compensation for delay in refund, aligning with the legal principles established in previous cases and statutory provisions.