9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of allowing any further enquiry at the end of said Deputy Commissioner and refuse the refund on that ground. The amount actually was refunded after the order dated 14.12.2016 was passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Ravindra Joshi but the tenor of the said order as well as the Affidavit filed in respect of the contempt notices issued by this Court, do not fully satisfy and in inspire any confidence that the respondents, in letter and spirit abide by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and still seek a refuge from this Court to keep open for them to hold an enquiry in the matter, which cannot be permitted. In view of the refund actually made now to the petitioner upon the considered order passed by the respondent himself holding the petitioner company entitled to the refund and refund having been made, no further enquiry in the matter at the end of Deputy Commissioner is justified - decided in favor of petitioner. - Writ Petition Nos. 45551-45554 of 2016 (T-TAR) - - - Dated:- 16-10-2017 - Vineet Kothari, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Srikumar, Adv., for Mr. Pradeep Nayak, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. K. V. Aravind, Advocate for R2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red on 26.03.2015 in Civil Appeal No.9440/2003 was refused and not given on the ground that Review application was filed by the Customs Department before the Hon ble Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment dated 26.03.2015. 2. The said Review petition also came to be dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 15.07.2016. But since, the respondents, suo- motu, did not take any action for refund of the aforesaid amounts due to the petitioner-company, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the various case laws in support of his contention, the leading among them in the case of Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India in W.P.(C) No.6750/2016 recently decided by the Delhi High Court on 03.08.2016. 4. Prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent-Department ought to have taken suo-motu action to refund the amount of duty due to the petitioner-company atleast after the rejection of their Review petition by the Hon ble Supreme Court. Even otherwise, mere filing of the Review petition by the Department befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mited, this Court in the previous order dated 20.09.2016 had clearly expressed that the respondent-authority can pass an appropriate order for refunding the excess customs duty paid by the petitioner-assessee. The respondent-authority has shown audacity to refuse to refund on the ground that Section 28-D allows a presumption that the incidence of excess customs duty has been passed to the customers, whereas no such presumption is available to be drawn in the present case and no other evidence has been brought on record by the said authority to establish that such incidence has been passed by the petitioner Company to its customers. This clearly amounts to contempt not only of this Court s order but also the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court indeed. Let the respondent Mr.Ravindra Joshi, Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) along with the Chief Commissioner of Customs, having jurisdiction over the said authority remain present before this Court on next date and show cause as to why they should be punished for committing the contempt of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in a surreptitious manner, by showing disregard to the clear and binding judgment upon him. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6, initiating contempt proceedings against them. Time prayed for is allowed. List again on 11.1.2017. Presence of the officers is dispensed with for the time being, subject to further orders. 3. Finally, the respondent Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) Mr. Ravindra Joshi passed the following refund order on 14.12.2016. The said order is also quoted hereinbelow: I hereby sanction refund amount of ₹ 5,82,63,745/- (Rupees Five Crore Eighty Two Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Five only) to M/s. Supertron Electronics Limited, 12/1, 1st Floor, CVR Building, Hosur Road, Wilson Garden, Bengaluru 560 027. 4. In compliance with the directions of this Court to show cause as to why contempt action should not be initiated against the respondent official for apparently not complying with the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF LIMITED Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS in CIVIL APPEAL NO.9440/2003 decided on 26.3.2015 against which the review petition filed by the Customs Department was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 15.7.2016, though the duty paid by the petitioner assessee under protest came to be refunded by the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the authority himself. 6. As to why contempt action should not be taken against them, the respondent officials, namely, Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Commissioner of Customs have filed their Affidavits dated 6.1.2017 and paragraph Nos.7 and 3 and 4 of both the Affidavits are quoted below, one filed by Mr. Ravindra Joshi, S/o Mr. Jagatram Joshi, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), Bangalore and Mr. Rajiv Bhushan Tiwari, S/o B.V. Tiwari working as Chief Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Zone, Bangalore. Affidavit of Mr. Ravindra Joshi 7. I submit that none of my actions were intended to disobey the orders of this Hon ble Court or to lower the Majesty of this Hon ble Court. I have highest regards to this Hon ble Court and I would not act in a way so as to deviate from any orders passed by this Hon ble Court. I offer my unconditional apology to this Hon ble Court which may be kindly accepted. I humbly request to consider the order directing me to deposit the cost (which is already complied with) having regard to the fact that I took charge of the office on 22.10.2016. Affidavit of Mr. Rajiv Bhushan Tiwari 3. However, pursuant to the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1 lakh to the petitioner as damages for their unnecessary and casual approach in trying to avoid the benefit of the binding precedent of the Supreme Court decision to the petitioner Company. (iii) The respondent Deputy Commissioner will determine the quantum of interest payable to the petitioner under Section 27A of the Act on such refund made to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of refund, within the period of one month from today and pay the same to the petitioner Company and a compliance report will be submitted in this court. (iv) In view of the refund actually made now to the petitioner upon the considered order passed by the respondent himself holding the petitioner company entitled to the refund and refund having been made, no further enquiry in the matter at the end of Deputy Commissioner is justified. (v) The respondents are not being punished under the contempt law for the time being, in view of the refund of the custom duty already made to the petitioner company, with a note of caution to them in that regard, for their future discharge of duties and for abiding by the binding precedents of constitutional courts in true letter and spi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
