Page 130 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

464 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

tax would be effective from date of Notification or from date of publication
thereof in Official Gazette - Hence, payment of duty itself not in question and
only rate thereof, disputed - Such difference in rate of duty as between period
prior to date of Notification and thereafter, only one of interpretation by au-
thorities - Refund claim filed on 3-2-2016, Application returned as defective
and application re-presented on 14-3-2016 - In terms of clear stipulation in Sec-
tion 27B of Customs Act, 1962 interest at rate of 6% payable to petitioner from
14-6-2016 till date of repayment within period of four (4) weeks from date of
receipt of order. [paras 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Commissioner v. UCAL Fuel Systems Ltd. — 2014 (306) E.L.T. 26 (Mad.)
— Distinguished .......................................................................................................................... [Para 22]
Enmas Andritz Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner — 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 314 (Mad.)
— Relied on ..................................................................................................................................... [Para 18]
Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India — 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.)
— Referred ....................................................................................................................................... [Para 18]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.)
— Distinguished ................................................................................................................... [Paras 17, 20]
Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. — 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)
— Followed ........................................................................................................................................ [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri J.V. Niranjan, for the Petitioner.
Shri A.P. Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture and sale of bak-
ery fats as well as a variety of other types of fats such as fatty acids, deoiled cakes
and specialty fats. It is a regular importer of crude vegetable oils and Palmolein
oil (in short products/products in question) that are used as raw material by the
petitioner in its manufacturing as well as traded as such.
2. In July 2001, the petitioner imported 2800.662 metric tonnes (MT) of
R.B.D. Palmolein (edible grade). Two bills of entry had been filed ex-bond on 3-8-
2001 and 4-8-2001 for clearance of 2471.788 MT of the product for home con-
sumption. There appears to have been a new rate of duty prescribed on 3-8-2001,
as per Notification No. 36 of 2001, published in the Gazette on 6-8-2001. The Cus-
toms Department re-assessed the ex-bond bills of entry on the basis that the re-
vised rate would be applicable to the imports whereas, the petitioner contended
that the original rate would be applicable as revision of duty will, according to it,
come into effect only from date of publication of such revision, being 6-8-2001.
Notwithstanding, the aforesaid submission, the differential duty amounting to a
sum of Rs. 1,09,11,275/- had been remitted under protest in September, 2001 on
various dates between 1-9-2011 and 6-9-2001.
3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Department in raising a
demand for differential duty on the ground that the original rate would be appli-
cable, since the revised rate had been published only on 6-8-2001, post the dates
of import. This issue was decided in favour of the petitioner on 4-6-2015 in W.P.
No. 15635/2001. This order has become final. Refund of the duty remitted was
claimed by the petitioner on 3-2-2016. Though the refund was sanctioned, the
same was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust en-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  130