9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Petitioner. Shri Vikram Gulati, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The grievance of the Appellant is that it has been denied interest on the refund of customs duty received by it from the Department in accordance with the law. 2. It transpires that the Appellant had imported some goods and the value of those goods were not assessed at the value of invoice price but on the basis of the value declared by London Metal Exchange. As a result of this assessment, the Appellant was required to pay, what it claimed to be excess customs duty. Feeling aggrieved by this the Appellant filed a writ petition in this Court being W.P.(C) No. 357 of 1996 in which it was prayed that the excess customs duty should be refunded to the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court, the Appellant moved an application before the customs authorities on 16 th June, 2003. This application for refund was allowed by the Customs Authorities by an order dated 10 th November, 2003. 6. Subsequent to the order passed on 10 th November, 2003, the Appellant made an application on 21 st January, 2004 claiming interest on the amount refunded. It may be noted that the amount refunded was about Rs.35 lakhs whereas the claim for interest was for about Rs.64 lakhs. According to the Appellant it had paid the customs duty under protest and therefore in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act') it was entitled to interest on the refunded amount from the date of such payment till the date of refund. 7. By ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund is issued and no refund is made. In the present case the order of refund was made on 10 th November, 2003. It may be noted that it is not the case of the Appellant that the amount was not refunded within the period of three months from 10 th November, 2003. Therefore, no interest was due to the Appellant in terms of Section 27A of the Act. 10. We also find that the only liberty granted by this Court while disposing of W.P.(C ) No. 357 of 1996 was to permit the Appellant to move an application for refund despite the bar of limitation. The Appellant did so and was granted the refund. At that point of time while applying for refund the Appellant did not make any claim for interest but made such a claim only 8 months thereafter and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
