Page 178 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

512 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

maintainable before the High Court. An Appeal, if any, would lie before the
Hon’ble Apex Court under Section 130E(b) of the Act.
14. The last submission on behalf of the Revenue viz. Undue hardship
to the general body of litigants under the Act, to move the Apex Court even
when the orders have been passed by the Tribunal in breach of the natural justice
and the party seeks only remand to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The ju-
risdiction of this Court in a statutory Appeal is determined by the terms of the
statute. We do not exercise jurisdiction in equity. Therefore, when we exercise
jurisdiction under Section 35G of the Act, we are bound by its provisions and
cannot travel outside it. Therefore, when Section 35G of the Act very clearly ex-
cludes our jurisdiction in respect of the orders of the Tribunal relating to the rates
of duty and the value of goods for the purposes of assessment, among other
things, we cannot entertain an Appeal on the above issue on ground of perceived
hardship. Thus, this submission on the part of the Revenue also does not merit
acceptance.
15. In the above view, the Appeal as filed is not maintainable before us
in view of Section 35G of the Act. The remedy, if any, to the Revenue is to ap-
proach to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, Appeal dismissed as not maintaina-
ble.
_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 512 (Kar.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Aravind Kumar and Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE
Versus
GIMPEX LTD.
CSTA No. 3 of 2018, decided on 11-3-2020
1
Interest on delayed refund - Cause of action for claiming interest
would arise after 3 months from date of filing of refund claim - Defective ap-
plication would only be irregularity not illegality - It cannot be stated that ap-
plication which was defective would not enable applicant to claim interest
from date of application - Fresh application filed by applicant on 16-10-2012
adjudicated along with earlier application dated 26-10-2009 by treating it as
having merged with fresh refund application - Application for refund not con-
trary to Section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Assessee rightly allowed in-
terest from 27-1-2010 as claimed by it - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 5]
Appeal dismissed
CASE CITED
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India — 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Referred ................... [Para 5]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate, for the Appellant.
[Judgment per : Aravind Kumar, J.]. - Heard Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi,
Learned Counsel appearing for appellant. Perused the records.
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 21121/2017, dated 24-7-2017 by CESTAT, Bangalore.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  178