9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LEVENTURES PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2016 (8) TMI 184 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. It was directed that until and unless the assessment itself was finally modified, the refund could not be allowed. As per the Supreme Court's decision in ITC refund applications could not be directly entertained without the order of assessment being modified through an order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 or under any other relevant provisions of the Act. The bills of entry date back to 2014 and the applications for refund were filed way back in 2015. After the said applications were filed, in fact, the refund was allowed. These bills of entry were subject matter of adjudication before this Court and the matter has then travelled a long way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CM APPL.1051/2025 CUSAA 26/2025, CM APPL.1053/2025 CUSAA 27/2025, CM APPL.1056/2025 CUSAA 28/2025, CM APPL.1058/2025 CUSAA 29/2025, CM APPL.1060/2025 CUSAA 30/2025, CM APPL.1062/2025 CUSAA 31/2025, CM APPL.1064/2025 CUSAA 32/2025, CM APPL.1066/2025 CUSAA 33/2025, CM APPL.1069/2025 CUSAA 34/2025, CM APPL.1072/2025 JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH And JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Agrim Arora, Ms. Purvi Sinha & Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advs. (IN ALL MATTERS) For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC and Mr. Ritwik Saha and Mr. Umang Misra, Advs. with Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, DC (Legal) ACC Import. (IN ALL MATTERS) Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel along with Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Shivang Chawla, Advs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to thirty-one bills of entry. The Appellant, for this purpose, had filed two refund applications before the Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) on 25th September, 2015 categorizing the thirty-one bills of entry into two batches consisting of 14 and 17 bills, respectively. 7. The said refund applications were rejected by Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) vide Order dated 30th June, 2016 on the ground that the Appellant has not provided re-assessed bills of entry in respect of said refund claims. 8. The Appellant had preferred an appeal against the said Order dated 30th June, 2016 in W.P.(C) 7851/2016. The Coordinate Bench of this Court had followed the decision in Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Union of India, [2016 (335) ELT 446 (Del)] and Yu Televen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cept the reasoning adopted by the High Court, that too is also not under the provisions of the Customs Act. 46. The decision in Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Union of India has followed Micromax. The reasoning employed by the High Courts of Delhi and Madras does not appear to be sound. The scope of the provisions of refund under Section 27 cannot be enlarged. It has to be read with the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 28 and 128. 47. When we consider the overall effect of the provisions prior to amendment and post-amendment under the Finance Act, 2011, we are of the opinion that the claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tember, 2019 (date of pronouncement of ITC (supra)), in computation of the limitation period in filing of appeals. 13. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the order dated 17th December 2020 rejected the said thirty-one appeals on two grounds namely, (i) the Appellant was not litigating on proceedings of like nature as mandated by Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 i.e., the previous litigation sought for refund and the present appeal seeks reassessment. (ii) the Appellant was not prosecuting in good faith in a wrong forum lacking jurisdiction as mandated by Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. 14. These orders were again challenged before the CESTAT in Customs Appeal No 50510 - 50540 of 2021. These appeals were tagged along with a differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed по illegality in dismissing the appeals." 16. The rationale in the order of the CESTAT is that, though, the appeals were filed within 90 days of the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court in ITC (supra), the time which has elapsed between the bills of entry and the application for refund by the Appellant would not be condonable and hence the appeals were dismissed by CESTAT. The Appellant has preferred these appeals against this order of CESTAT dated 4th June, 2024. 17. This Court, upon perusal of the appeals and documents annexed herewith, has noticed that in Customs Appeal Nos.50510 - 50540 of 2021, the number of days between the decision of Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
