Paras Marble VS Union Of India

The instant writ petition has been filed by M/s. Paras Marble to challenge the order (Annexure-10) dated 16th October 2020, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II). The petitioner seeks a directive to respondent No.3 to reconsider their refund application, contending that it should be considered within the applicable limitation period. The petition primarily disputes the decision made by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs and seeks judicial intervention to review and potentially overturn the decision regarding their refund claim.

The instant writ petition has been filed by M/s. Paras Marble to challenge the order dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II). The petitioner seeks a direction for respondent No. 3 to reconsider their refund application within the applicable limitation period.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, imported capital goods duty-free under EPCG license No. 1330000397 dated 28.11.2003. As per the terms, a bank guarantee of Rs. 4,84,000/- was furnished in favor of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Subsequently, the Customs Department enforced this bank guarantee.

The instant writ petition has been filed by M/s. Paras Marble to challenge the order dated 16th October 2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II). The petitioner seeks to compel respondent No.3 to reconsider their refund application, arguing that it is within the applicable time limitation.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, had imported capital goods under EPCG license No. 1330000397 dated 28th November 2003, without paying duty. To secure this arrangement, they provided a bank guarantee amounting to Rs. 4,84,000/- in favor of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. In 2011, the Customs Department enforced this bank guarantee. Subsequently, the petitioner fulfilled their export obligations under the EPCG license, resulting in the issuance of an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Jaipur, dated 10th October 2018 in their favor.

According to Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962, a registered dealer is entitled to seek a refund of the security amount upon issuance of the EODC, with a filing deadline of six months from the date of goods clearance. The petitioner asserts that this deadline, in their case, falls on 10th October 2018.

The instant writ petition has been filed by M/s. Paras Marble to challenge the order dated 16.10.2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II). The petitioner seeks directions to respondent No.3 to reconsider their refund application, contending that it was erroneously rejected as being outside the statutory limitation period.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, imported capital goods duty-free under EPCG licence No. 1330000397 dated 28.11.2003, supported by a bank guarantee worth Rs. 4,84,000/- in favor of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. In 2011, the Customs Department invoked and enforced this bank guarantee. Subsequently, upon fulfilling their export obligations under the EPCG licence, the petitioner received an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Jaipur on 10.10.2018.

Under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962, a registered dealer becomes eligible for a refund of the security amount upon issuance of the EODC, with a six-month window for filing the refund application from the date of goods clearance, here determined by the petitioner to be 10.10.2018.

Following receipt of the EODC, the petitioner applied for the refund of the bank guarantee amount via a letter dated 24.11.2018. However, it appears that this application was inadvertently addressed to the Commissioner of Customs instead of the appropriate Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who holds authority to grant refunds under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds-II) after expiry of the statutory period of six months from the date of clearance of goods, as stipulated under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondents contend that since the application was filed beyond the prescribed time limit, the refusal to grant refund was justified under the law.

The petitioner, M/s. Paras Marble, had imported capital goods under EPCG license No. 1330000397 dated 28.11.2003, supported by a bank guarantee of Rs. 4,84,000/- in favor of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The Customs Department enforced this bank guarantee in 2011. Upon fulfilling the export obligations, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Jaipur issued an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) on 10.10.2018 to the petitioner.

Under Section 26 of the Customs Act, upon issuance of the EODC, a registered dealer is entitled to seek refund of the security amount within six months from the date of clearance of goods. The petitioner claims that their refund application, dated 24.11.2018, though initially misdirected to the Commissioner of Customs, was subsequently resubmitted in proper form to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) on 20.05.2019. Despite repeated reminders, the refund application was not processed until the Assistant Commissioner returned it on 03.08.2020, citing improper format. The petitioner then refiled on 04.09.2020 in the correct format, only to have it rejected on 16.10.2020 as time-barred.

In response, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the rejection and seeking directions to treat their application as within the limitation period and decide it on merits.

The respondents argue that the application of 04.09.2020 was indeed filed beyond the permissible time frame, thereby justifying their refusal to grant the refund.

The matter is now before the Court for adjudication on whether the petitioner’s refund application should be considered within the statutory limitation period despite procedural delays and misdirections in filing.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: