Page 154 - ELT_2nd_15th April 2020_Vol 372_Part

200 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

from one table to another and one authority to another, the authority had come
to the conclusion that the case of refund was made out and, accordingly, the or-
der of 24-1-2017 came to be passed.
6.1 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that
the respondents were not justified in tossing the file from one authority to anoth-
er and they were under obligation to process the refund as soon as possible. The
petitioner has not only been entitled to receive the refund but entitled to receive
the refund along with interest, which may be deemed fit by the Court.
7. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the respondent invited the Court’s
attention to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the affidavit-in-reply along
with order impugned would clearly indicate that the petitioner did not bring
forward the requisite documents, which were required to be produced for seek-
ing refund as it was a duty cast upon the claimant of refund to satisfy the con-
cerned authority that the refund would not result into unjust enrichment to the
recipient. Counsel for the respondent further submitted that the order-in-appeal
is, in fact, appealable and, therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion of India may not entertain this petition.
7.1 Counsel for the respondent submitted that the claim of the authori-
ty for seeking appropriate documents for processing the refund or payment of
refund cannot be viewed as a tactic or design to delay the refund. There cannot
be any interest on the part of the respondent in not releasing the refund on being
satisfied with the requirement of payment of refund. Learned Counsel for the
respondent submitted that the Court, therefore, may not entertain this petition
and dismiss the same.
8. This Court has heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the papers and annexures to the petition.
9. The entire issue is in a very narrow compass. The facts narrated here-
in-above and rather the order impugned will throw sufficient light on the aspects
of the petitioners’ entitlement for receiving the refund. It would not be, therefore,
out of place to extract and reproduce certain aspects and observations of the au-
thority in respect of the claim and refund. The authority, as could be seen from
perusal of the impugned order, enlisted the documents annexed by the petition-
er, which deserve to be reproduced hereunder:-
“17. The claimant has filed following documents with current refund
claim application;
(i) Refund application dated 16-8-2017 in prescribed proforma under Sec-
tion 27 of Customs Act, 1962.
(ii) Worksheet dated 17-2-2017 for interest calculation.
(iii) Copy of Order-in-Assessment No. KDL/DC/NC/105/GR.V/2016,
dated 23-1-2017.
(iv) Order-in-Appeal No. 570/2013/Cus/Commr(A)/KDL, dated 21-8-
2013;
(v) C.A. Certificate dated 8-8-2017 from Mayank R. Shah & Co., Char-
tered Accountant, Vadodara, certifying that, M/s. ONGC Ltd. has
imported goods through the subject bills of entry and paid excise du-
ty. As required for principle of unjust enrichment in the case before
sanction of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th April 2020  170