2022 (9) TMI 229 - HC - Customs

Refund claim - the only glitch is that the application for refund has not been preferred before the concerned authority i.e., the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi i.e., respondent no.1 - HELD THAT - Having regard to the amount involved and given the fact that respondent no.1 is a party, the instant writ petition can be treated as an application and appropriate orders can be passed qua the same, by respondent no.1. The amount indicated therein i.e., Rs. 7,30,913/-, which was deposited towards differential duty, includes the amount appropriated i.e., Rs 4,16,755/- by virtue of order-in-original dated 28.05.2019. Respondent no.1 will treat the writ petition as the petitioner s application for refund and pass appropriate orders for a refund of the aforementioned amount - writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Refund of deposited amount, Authority for remittance, Application for refund, Circular interpretation, Appropriating authority, Writ petition as application, Interest payment consideration.

In this judgment by the Delhi High Court, the main issue revolves around the refund of an amount deposited by the petitioner following an Order-in-Appeal dated 22.05.2020. The court addresses the impediment concerning the authority required to remit the amount. The respondent informs that the refund application should have been made before the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi. However, the petitioner had moved the application for refund before the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva, Maharashtra, who had appropriated the amount. The respondent relies on a circular from the Government of India, emphasizing that the application should have been made to the respondent for processing. The petitioner argues that historically, the appropriating authority had ordered refunds upon application submission.

The court notes that the amount involved is significant and that respondent no.1 is a party in the case. Therefore, the court treats the writ petition as an application and directs respondent no.1 to pass appropriate orders for the refund of the deposited amount. The court clarifies that this action does not contradict the circular highlighted by the respondent. It is undisputed that the Order-in-Appeal favored the petitioner and that the deposited amount was related to the investigation, as evidenced by the challan. The court disposes of the writ petition with specific directions for respondent no.1: treating the petition as the refund application, considering the petitioner's request for interest payment from the deposit date, and issuing necessary orders within four weeks, as per a previous judgment. Compliance is scheduled to be reviewed on 22.11.2022.