Order Date – 31 January 2023

Parties: M/s Sentec India Company Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Sentec India Company Private Limited, during the period from April 2004 to December 2007 imported certain goods from related parties, the same were subject to assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (SVP). 
• Pursuant to the value of the goods as finalised, the petitioner claimed that ₹57,52,076 became refundable. On 19.02.2019 filed a refund application. The refund was allowed partly on 20.06.2019 and partly on 09.04.2021. 
• The petitioner made a written request for the refunding the same whereas it was treated as a fresh application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and rejected on the ground that the appellant had not quoted the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation.

Issue –

• Whether the written request for refund sanctioned can be considered as a fresh application under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962?

Order –

• The Divisional bench of Hon’ble High Court held that Respondent has misdirected itself in considering the petitioner’s request for refund of the balance amount of ₹13,53,326/- made on 22.07.2022 as a fresh application. The said request was in continuation of the proceedings relating to the application for refund dated 19.02.2019. Thus, the question of the petitioner’s claim being barred by limitation does not arise.
• In view of the above, the second ground that the petitioner had not quoted the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 (supra), does not arise in the present case.
• It cannot countenance the approach of the respondents to insist that the orders passed by the Supreme Court be necessarily quoted by applicants for availing their benefit. The respondents are bound to consider the orders passed by the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the same are not referred to by the applicants. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.11.2022 is set aside. The respondent is directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s request for refund