Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

W.P. No. 15339 of 2002. Case: Arthanari Loom Centre Vs Secretary, C.B.E. and C.. Chennai (Madras) High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Document Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberW.P. No. 15339 of 2002
Party NameArthanari Loom Centre Vs Secretary, C.B.E. and C.
CounselFor Appellant: Shri C. Saravanan, Advocate and For Respondents: Shri P. Mahadevan, SC
JudgesR. Mahadevan, J.
IssueCustoms Act, 1962 - Section 129EE
Citation2016 (332) ELT 778 (Mad)
Judgement DateSeptember 16, 2015
CourtChennai (Madras) High Court CEGAT & CESTAT Cases

Order:

  1. This writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to refund a sum of Rs. 70,76,029.35 (Rs. 61,53,069/- principal plus Rs. 9,22,960.35 being the interest at 15%) to the petitioner, pursuant to the Order No. 574/2001, dated 27-4-2001 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai [2001 (132) E.L.T. 464 (Tri.-Chen.)], setting aside the demand, penalty and fine.

  2. The case of the petitioner is that as against the Order No. 15/99, dated 14-7-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy with respect to confiscation of fourteen machineries which were not covered by the EPCG licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in No. 697/2000 before the CEGAT, Chennai, which set aside the order-in-original and directed for de novo proceedings on the ground of denial of sufficient opportunity. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, in his de novo adjudication Order No. 59/2000, dated 11-10-2000, confiscated 14 machines which were not covered by EPCG License at the time of import, however, with an option to redeem the same. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the CEGAT in Order No. 573/2001, which set aside the de novo order and allowed the appeal, against which, the department filed a Civil Appeal No. 3207 of 2002 before the Hon''ble Supreme Court [2003 (157) E.L.T. A257 (S.C.)], which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 16-7-2008. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court.

  3. This Court, by way of an interim order dated 29-7-2002, directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 61,53,069/- and on such furnishing, the respondents were directed to pay the said sum and further directed the petitioner to keep the bank guarantee alive till the disposal of the writ petition. Further, by order dated 22-7-2005, this Court clarified that there is no need to keep the bank guarantee alive or extend its life as ordered on 29-7-2002.

  4. As per Circular F. No. 275/37/2K-CX.8A, dated 2-1-2002, issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, it was clarified that refund applications under Section 11B(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, need not be insisted upon and a simple letter from the person who has made such deposit, along with an attested xerox...

To continue reading

Request your trial