9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication. The said request was in continuation of the proceedings relating to the application for refund dated 19.02.2019. Thus, the question of the petitioner s claim being barred by limitation does not arise. The authorities are fully aware of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 [ 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER ] and this Court cannot countenance the approach of the respondents to insist that the orders passed by the Supreme Court be necessarily quoted by applicants for availing their benefit. The respondents are bound to consider the orders passed by the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the same are not referred to by the applicants. The impugned order dated 07.11.2022 is set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07. 5. While those proceedings were pending, the goods in question were cleared on provisional assessment basis on payment of EDD of 1% or 5% in terms of Circular No. 11/2001- Cus dated 23.02.2001 and Circular No. 1/1998-Cus dated 01.01.1998. 6. The proceedings before SVB were finalised and pursuant to the value of the goods as finalised, the petitioner claimed that ₹57,52,076 became refundable. In the circumstances, on 19.02.2019, the petitioner filed an application for refund of EDD before the learned Assistant Commissioner of Customs (respondent no. 1). The said application was partly allowed by order dated 20.06.2019. Refund claim for an amount of ₹43,21,974 was sanctioned; claim of ₹76,776 was rejected on the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oms Act, 1962 (hereafter the Customs Act ) and was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the same was not filed within limitation. 11. It is apparent from the facts as noted above that the petitioner s written request dated 22.07.2022, seeking refund of the balance amount was not an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, but merely a request to the respondents to act in accordance with law and give effect to the appellate order dated 20.06.2019. The concerned authority overlooked the fact that the petitioner s application for refund of EDD was made on 19.02.2019. 12. Once the order dated 20.06.2019, partly rejecting the said application had been set aside, the natural corollary would be to process the said appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s request for refund could not be disallowed on the aforesaid ground. The authorities are fully aware of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 (supra) and this Court cannot countenance the approach of the respondents to insist that the orders passed by the Supreme Court be necessarily quoted by applicants for availing their benefit. The respondents are bound to consider the orders passed by the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the same are not referred to by the applicants. 18. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 is set aside. The respondent is directed to forthwith process the petitioner s request for refund within a period of two weeks from today. 19. The r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
