9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id, has been called in question. 3. It is the contention of Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, learned counsel appearing for appellant that Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995, would provide for scrutiny of an application for refund to be filed in accordance with prescribed form and on such application being filed within a period of 10 working days scrutiny takes place and if it is found that application is incomplete in any manner, same would be returned and as such liability to pay interest would start from the date of receipt of complete application. He would also contend that Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 would indicate that application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.05.2010 for non-compliance of original observations. In the meanwhile, department had challenged the OIO No.13/2009 (Commissioner) dated 22.09.2009 before CESTAT and tribunal by Final Order No.546/2012 dated 06.08.2012 rejected the appeal of revenue and it was accepted by the department. It is thereafter fresh application for refund on 16.10.2012 seeking refund of the amount realized by department by invoking the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 13,75,000/-. The adjudicating authority, adjudicated the refund claim and by order dated 27.02.2013, sanctioned the refund of Rs. 13,75,000/- under Section 27(2) of the Act by holding claim has been filed within the time limit and rejected the claim for interest on the ground that application shall be deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts obtained in a given case may opt to file an application afresh for refund, which may be or may not be in consonance with the regulations made thereunder. However, if the department or revenue chooses for returning the application for compliance of deficiencies and on compliance of deficiencies pointed, such application if adjudicated by the authorities, they cannot be heard to contend that application which was defective would not enable the applicant to claim interest from the date of application. In fact, fresh application filed by the applicant on 16.10.2012 was adjudicated along with earlier application dated 26.10.2009 by treating it as having merged with fresh refund application. Hence, application for refund would not be contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
