Page 181 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] NEW KAMAL v. UNION OF INDIA 571

2020 (372) E.L.T. 571 (Guj.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sonia Gokani and Gita Gopi, JJ.
NEW KAMAL
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
R/Special Civil Application No. 13167 of 2019 with R/S.C.A. No. 13171 of 2019,
decided on 13-3-2020
Interest on delayed refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - Goods
purchased from SEZ - Refund issued to petitioner after more than a decade -
Interest @ 6% per annum to be granted in terms of Section 27A of Customs Act,
1962. [para 8]
Petitions disposed of
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 11/2017-Cus., dated 31-3-2017 ..................................................................... [Para 3]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Amal Paresh Dave and Paresh M. Dave, for
the Petitioner.
Shri P.Y. Divyeshvar, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Sonia Gokani (Common) (Oral), J.]. - Since both these peti-
tions involve identical question of law and facts, they are heard and adjudicated
together by this common order.
2. Drawing the facts from Special Civil Application No. 13167 of 2019,
it is noticed that the petitioners engaged in the business of trading of used and
worn clothes, had purchased mutilated worn clothes from one M/s. Om Siddh
Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd., located in the Kandla Special Economic Zone. The
goods imported in India are liable to duties of Customs leviable under the Cus-
toms Act, 1962 and also additional Customs duties leviable under Section 3 of
Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2.1 By virtue of Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007, the Central
Government has granted exemption from 4% Special Additional Duty (‘SAD’ for
short), if the goods were imported in India for their subsequent sale. Since SAD
under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act is charged for counter balancing
Sales Tax, VAT, etc. when such goods were subsequently sold in India, exemp-
tion is available from the SAD.
2.2 The petitioners were entitled to the refund of 4% SAD paid on the
goods purchased from the SEZ unit. Therefore, the petitioners moved refund
applications on 19-10-2009, 2-2-2010, 4-12-2010, 22-1-2011, 12-1-2011, 4-11-2010
and 18-1-2011 respectively before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Re-
fund).
2.3 The said refund applications were not decided by second respond-
ent therefore, petitioners moved Special Civil Application No. 18948 of 2018 and
Special Civil Application No. 18950 of 2018 whereby this Court directed second
respondent to decide petitioners’ representations and claims for refund within a
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  181