Page 138 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

320 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

cised its jurisdiction and the punishment imposed on the respondent is propor-
tionate and so we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the
Tribunal.
19. The Appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. Pending
miscellaneous petitions in this CEA, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 320 (Ker.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

A.M. Shaffique, J.
SONY PICTURES NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA

W.P.(C) No. 10019 of 2016(B), decided on 29-7-2016
Refund of pre-deposit made under Sections 129E and 129EE of Cus-
toms Act, 1962 for availing right of appeal - Department under an obligation to
refund the amount when Tribunal passed the order allowing the appeal filed
by the petitioner - That apart, C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A,
dated 2-1-2002, clearly indicates that the amount received under Section 35F of
Central Excise Act, 1944 which is in pari materia with the provision under Sec-
tion 129E of Customs Act, 1962 has to be given as refund even without a
formal application - Consequently, petitioner is entitled to refund with appli-
cable interest - Question of unjust enrichment not arises at all. [paras 4, 5, 6]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. Multi Screen Media Pvt. Ltd. — 2015 (322) E.L.T. 421 (S.C.) — Referred ........... [Para 2]
Commissioner v. Shree Simandar Enterprises — 2012 (283) E.L.T. 369 (Ker.) — Relied on ........... [Para 5]
Commissioner v. Shree Simandar Enterprises — 2012 (285) E.L.T. 328 (Ker.) — Relied on ........... [Para 4]
Suvidhe Ltd. v. Union of India — 1996 (82) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.) — Relied on ..................................... [Para 4]
Union of India v. Suvidhe Ltd. — 1997 (94) E.L.T. A159 (S.C.) — Relied on ..................................... [Para 4]
DEPARTMENTAL CLARIFICATION CITED
C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A, dated 2-1-2002 .................................................... [Para 5]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Shaji Thomas, Prakash D. Shah, Binu Paul,
B. Rajesh (Kottayam) and Prasad Paranjape,
Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Shri Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
[Judgment]. - This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3 and for a di-
rection to the 3rd respondent to forthwith sanction and grant refund of
` 1,15,15,214/- made by the petitioner with interest from the date of order passed
by the Appellate Tribunal, i.e., 18-11-2002.
2. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the peti-
tioner had deposited the aforesaid amount being the differential import duty as
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  138