Page 182 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

572 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

period of 90 days. In view of this direction, refund claims of the petitioners were
sanctioned and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13167 of 2019 has
been paid amount of Rs. 4,38,695/- by order dated 19-3-2019 and Rs. 1,93,116/-
by order 5-4-2019 whereas petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13171 of
2019 has been paid amount of Rs. 18,62,355/- by order dated 10-4-2019. The peti-
tioners are entitled to get interest on the amount of Rs. 6,31,811/- and
Rs. 18,62,355/- respectively for the delayed refund as stipulated under Section
27A of the Customs Act.
2.4 Various Communications were addressed to the respondent No. 2
by the petitioners claiming interest amount under Section 27A of the Customs
Act. However, no response was given by the respondent No. 2. The petitioners,
therefore, approached this Court by filing two petitions with the following pray-
ers :-
“SCA No. 13167 of 2019.
17(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order directing the 2nd respondent herein to
revise and modify the orders dated 19-3-2019 and 5-4-2019 (Annexure “C”),
thereby sanctioning and paying statutory interest in the petitioner’s favour
on refund aggregating to Rs. 6,31,811/- sanctioned to the petitioner under
these orders;
SCA No. 13171 of 2019
18(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, order directing the 2nd respondent herein to
revise and modify all the four orders dated 10-4-2019 (Annexure “C”),
thereby sanctioning and paying statutory interest in the petitioner’s favour
on refund aggregating to Rs. 18,62,335/- sanctioned to the petitioner under
these orders;”
3. Upon service of notice, affidavit in reply is filed by other side. We
noticed that subject refund claims were submitted by the petitioners on 19-10-
2009, 4-12-2010, 22-1-2011, 12-1-2011, 4-11-2010 and 18-1-2011 seeking 4% SAD
paid by them at the time of import from unit in Kandla SEZ and Circular No.
11/2017, dated 31-3-2017 by C.B.E. & C. was issued after more than 7 years of
filing of applications of refund. According to them interest could not be allowed
retrospectively, as the Customs House, Kandla was not empowered to settle the
refund claim prior to 31-3-2017. The Standard Operating Procedure (‘SOP’ for
short) is to deal with old cases of refund pending as on the date of coming into
effect of the notification dated 31-3-2017 wherein it was directed that SAD is to be
refunded by the Customs, Central Excise or Central GST authorities.
4. It is noticed that the gap in procedure was due to the fault that there
was no provision of giving refund in SEZ law and that the provision is extended
by way of amending SEZ Rules by inserting new Rule 47(5) empowering officers
of the Customs to issue refund claims and as the past refund cases have been
streamlined, delay has been caused. The respondents have not disputed that
there is an entitlement on part of the petitioners to get interest as contemplated
under Section 27A of the Customs Act.
5. Heard Mr. P.M. Dave, Learned Counsel for the petitioners. All that
what is required to be noted is that the petitioners have made claim for refund
and if the same was sanctioned after huge delay of 7 years, there can hardly be
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  182