2018 (3) TMI 784 - HC - Customs

Rebate claim - petitioner s case is that they are engaged in the manufacture and sale of Silver Oxide Zinc/Silver Chloride Batteries in their factory situated in Pudukottai District - Held that - Unfortunately, the Department did not consider the petitioner s claim, but appears to have lost the file and requested copies to be furnished so as to enable them to reconstruct the file. However, this reconstruction was done in 2013 and till date, nothing has moved. The inaction on the part of the Department is not appreciable and it is a clear case, where the officials were blatantly violated the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi wherein it is specifically stated that, in no case, the refund claim should be kept pending beyond the period of three months. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in settling rebate claim by the respondent.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a direction for the respondent to settle the rebate claim filed in 2011, amounting to ?6,91,148 along with interest. Despite corresponding with the department since 2011 and receiving minimal responses, the claim remained unresolved, prompting the petitioner to seek relief from the court. The petitioner's business involved importing and re-exporting batteries under Section 74 of the Customs Act, seeking a refund of duty drawback due to the exemption from excise duty and non-utilization of Cenvat Credit facility. The department's failure to act on the claim and the subsequent request for document copies to reconstruct the file in 2013 resulted in significant delays. The court noted the department's violation of circulars mandating timely disposal of refund claims within three months.

The court found the department's inaction unacceptable and directed the respondent to decide on the petitioner's rebate/refund claims from 2011, 2013, and 2017 promptly. The order required the respondent to evaluate the claims based on merit and legal provisions, providing a personal hearing opportunity to the petitioner's authorized representative within four weeks from the date of the court's order. The judgment emphasized the importance of adherence to circulars governing the timely processing of refund claims and highlighted the necessity for the respondent to act promptly in resolving the petitioner's claims.