Page 180 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

514 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

addressed itself would evidence that there cannot be a claim for interest as no
show cause notice was issued, is erroneous conclusion as provisions of Section
11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, do not contemplate for returning of any re-
fund claims. By relying upon the judgment in the matter of Ranbaxy Laboratories
Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 whereunder it has been held
that interest liability arise after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of
such application has allowed the interest from 27-1-2010 namely date on which
the interest was claimed by the respondent. As rightly held by the Tribunal cause
of action for claiming interest would arise after 3 months from the date of filing
of said refund claim. If at all the application is defective, it would only be an ir-
regularity not illegality. On the other hand, if the application for refund had been
rejected by the department on that score, the contours of refund claim would
have changed, inasmuch as, on such rejection applicant in the facts obtained in a
given case may opt to file an application afresh for refund, which may be or may
not be in consonance with the regulations made thereunder. However, if the de-
partment or revenue chooses for returning the application for compliance of de-
ficiencies and on compliance of deficiencies pointed, such application if adjudi-
cated by the authorities, they cannot be heard to contend that application which
was defective would not enable the applicant to claim interest from the date of
application. In fact, fresh application filed by the applicant on 16-10-2012 was
adjudicated along with earlier application dated 26-10-2009 by treating it as hav-
ing merged with fresh refund application. Hence, application for refund would
not be contrary to Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and as such we are
not inclined to admit this appeal, since there is no substantial question of law
involved in this appeal for being adjudicated. Hence, appeal stands dismissed.

_______

2020 (373) E.L.T. 514 (Kar.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Aravind Kumar and Hemant Chandangoudar, JJ.
MOHAMMED ANIF
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MANGALORE

CSTA No. 3 of 2020, decided on 11-3-2020
1
Penalty - Smuggling of gold - Competent Authority to adjudicate -
Value of gold confiscated exceeding ` 5 lakhs - Penalty to be adjudicated by
Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or a Joint
Commissioner of Customs - Additional Commissioner of Customs included
within definition of Commissioner of Customs - Order of confiscation and
levy of penalty by Additional Commissioner of Customs not to be faulted -
Sections 2(8), 112(a) and 122 of Customs Act, 1962. [paras 7, 8]

________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1399 (Tribunal).
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  180