Page 179 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE v. GIMPEX LTD. 513

2. Order passed by CESTAT, dated 24-7-2017 allowing the appeal filed
by the respondent by arriving at a conclusion that interest is to be paid by the
appellant from 27-1-2010 namely from the date on which the interest claimed is
to be paid, has been called in question.
3. It is the contention of Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralagi, Learned Counsel ap-
pearing for appellant that Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations,
1995, would provide for scrutiny of an application for refund to be filed in ac-
cordance with prescribed form and on such application being filed within a peri-
od of 10 working days scrutiny takes place and if it is found that application is
incomplete in any manner, same would be returned and as such liability to pay
interest would start from the date of receipt of complete application. He would
also contend that Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 would indicate that
application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or
other evidence (including the documents referred to in Section 28C) and failure
to furnish the same, would not entitle the applicant to contend that application is
in order and as such question of payment of interest from the date of claim made
by appellant i.e., from 27-1-2010 is erroneous. Hence, contending substantial
question of law raised in the appeal would arise for consideration, he prays for
framing of same and also seeks for same being answered in favour of the reve-
nue.
4. Respondent herein had exported iron ore fines and was required to
pay differential duty of Customs @ Rs. 250/- per metric tonne if the Fe content
was more than 60%. Test conducted disclosed that content was 62.1% and as
such respondent was directed to pay the differential duty of Rs. 55,00,000/-. Not
being satisfied with the analysis report, respondent sought for sealed counter
samples and bank guarantee issued by the respondent to the extent of
Rs. 13,75,000/- was invoked. Show cause notice issued on 8-8-2008 was adjudi-
cated by original authority in O-I-O No. 13/2009 (Commissioner) and by order
dated 22-9-2009 proceedings came to be dropped. It is thereafter refund claim for
Rs. 13,75,000/- plus interest was filed on 26-10-2009, which was returned by the
authorities on 5-11-2009 on account of certain defects and it was resubmitted on
23-2-2010, which was returned by the revenue on 4-3-2010 and re-submitted by
the appellant on 20-4-2010. However, said application was returned with defi-
ciency memo dated 10-5-2010 for non-compliance of original observations. In the
meanwhile, department had challenged the O-I-O No. 13/2009 (Commissioner),
dated 22-9-2009 before CESTAT and Tribunal by Final Order No. 546/2012, dat-
ed 6-8-2012 rejected the appeal of revenue and it was accepted by the depart-
ment. It is thereafter fresh application for refund on 16-10-2012 seeking refund of
the amount realized by department by invoking the Bank Guarantee of
Rs. 13,75,000/-. The adjudicating authority, adjudicated the refund claim and by
order dated 27-2-2013, sanctioned the refund of Rs. 13,75,000/- under Section
27(2) of the Act by holding claim has been filed within the time-limit and rejected
the claim for interest on the ground that application shall be deemed to have re-
ceived on the date of complete application and application for refund had been
returned under a deficiency memo. This order which was affirmed by the appel-
late authority on 16-4-2014 was carried before CESTAT by the respondent in Ap-
peal, which was the subject matter of Final Order No. 21121/2017.
5. Tribunal after considering rival contentions raised has rightly held
that claims were returned due to deficiency and deficiency memos having been

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  179