9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %. The Bills of Entry relate to imports made during the years1989 and 1990. On 19.4.1991, Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar decided the matter in favour of GSFC and held that consequential refund be granted to GSFC in respect of the cases where the goods were assessed to duty at the rate of 15% ad-valorem. In view of the aforesaid order, GSFC filed a refund claim for an amount of ₹ 1,48,41,113/- on 4.6.1991. The Revenue issued show cause notice dated 31.5.1995 proposing to deal with the refund claim as per section 27 of the Act. By order dated17.8.1995, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the refund claims subject to transferring the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund. GSFC preferred appeal before the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.8.2000. The Revenue again preferred another application before the CEGAT and in that application, the CEGAT has directed the Revenue to grant refund and to report compliance by 25.1.2001. 4. Reading the order dated 24.11.1998, it is clear that at the relevant time before the CEGAT, the contention of the Revenue was that GSFC has not produced any evidence to show that the goods imported have been captively consumed by GSFC in its factory, to which advocate for GSFC stated that sufficient evidence shall be produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) in support of its contention that the goods have been so used. CEGAT therefore directed the Commissioner to consider the evidence that may be produced before him and to pass appropriate orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court to issue a writ under Article 226is discretionary. Inordinate delay is an adequate ground for refusing to exercise the discretion. We are conscious of the fact that the Limitation Act does not apply to writ petitions, but where the delay is of more than a reasonable period, it will be proper for this Court to hold that the delay is unreasonable. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that this Court should take into consideration the fact that the Revenue was agitating before another forum. Even if that fact is taken into consideration, after several rounds of litigation, the CEGAT decided the matter finally on 1.11.1999, and thus there is delay of more than one year. It is also required to be noted that the Tribunal decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned in this appeal . 10. Even if the decision rendered by a competent Court/Tribunal having jurisdiction is wrong, it is as much binding between the parties as aright one and may be superseded only by appeals to higher forum or other procedure like review which law provides (AIR 1966 SC 1061 at 1066, para 14). In the instant case, as stated above, the Commissioner of Appeals, Ahmedabad by order dated 27.5.1999 held that GSFC is entitled for the refund and the said view is confirmed by CEGAT on 1.11.1999. The Revenue did not challenge the same within a reasonable period. Hence, so far as the parties are concerned, the judgment has become final as the same is not challenged. 11. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
