9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 80 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI ) – decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Petition(Civil) No. 577/1992 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2013 - Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva,JJ. For the Petitioner : Nemo For the Respondent : Nemo ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. (Oral):- M/s M.D. Textile Industries Limited has filed the present writ petition for refund of customs duty of Rs.3,59,744.95 with interest from 22nd May, 1989. 2. The following order was passed on 4th March, 1993:- On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled to refund, subject to the plea of undue enrichment, if any, available to the respondents. Mr. Lokur says that the respondents would examine the matter and will pass an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleased on the petitioner paying the admitted duty and 50% of the disputed duty pursuant to directions by the High Court in writ proceedings. 6. On 29th August, 1991, the petitioner filed an application for refund of Rs.3,59,744.95 in view of the assessment order dated 13th August, 1991 but when no refund was granted, this writ petition was filed in February, 1992. We have already noted that refund of Rs.3,59,744.95 was issued on 17th March, 1993 after delay of about one and a half years. The short question is whether the respondents should pay interest for the said delay in refund. 7. We feel that the respondents should pay interest for the said delay as there is no justification and reason whatsoever in not refunding the amount. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2. Admittedly, in the present case the application for refund is dated 29th August, 1991 whereas the amendment by Central Excise and Customs Law (Amendment) Act, 1991 was made applicable with effect from 20th September, 1991. The said application should have been processed without requirement of fulfilling additional or new conditions imposed by the said amendment. 8. The view we have taken is in consonance with the Division Bench decision of this Court in Tata Infotec Limited versus Collector of Customs, (2004) 111 DLT 178, wherein it has been observed:- 8. From the factual scenario, projected above, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount realised by the respondent on encashment of bank guarantee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is, Therefore, to be presumed that despite the Board's circular and Section 27A of the Act, the authorities concerned, in their own wisdom, did not think the matter to be so urgent as to immediately respond to petitioner's request and promptly issue the refund order. Nonetheless, it shows a disdainful and recalcitrant attitude of the respondent. 9. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the respondent has withheld the refund of Rs.7,08,050/-, which became due to the petitioner on the passing of the order by the Tribunal on 21 December 1999, without any rhyme or reason and, Therefore, they are liable to pay interest to the petitioner. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed; rule is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
