JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.22117 of 2014 20. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned Order-in-Original No.25792/14 dated 20.05.2014 is set aside and the respondent shall refund the claim made by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the Order-in- Original, together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the refund application. The respondent shall endeavour to disburse the refund

msrj quash order Sekarreporter

[9/5, 10:34] Sekarreporter 1: [9/5, 10:34] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No.22117 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 03.08.2020
Pronounced on 01.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. [9/5, 10:34] Sekarreporter 1: [9/5, 10:34] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No.22117 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 03.08.2020
Pronounced on 01.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.22117 of 2014
Johnson Lifts Pvt.Ltd.,
No.1, East Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Western Extension,
Chennai – 600 101. …Petitioner
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner of Custom (Refunds),
Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. …Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Order-In-
Original No.25792/2014 Job No.26952/14 dated 20.05.2014 in
S25/SAD/1988/14 – Refunds in F.No.S24/SAD/1035/13 Refunds passed by
the respondent, quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and direct the
respondent to grant refund to the petitioner.
1/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
[9/5, 10:34] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No.22117 of 2014
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts.
19. The aforesaid powers of the High Court to entertain a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though the
petitioner had not exhausted the alternative forum for redressal, has been
reiterated, in various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One such
decision in L.K.Verma vs. HMT Ltd. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 975, holds
that a writ Court may exercise its discretionary judicial power to review
inter-alia in cases where the authorities lack jurisdiction or for enforcement
of fundamental rights or if there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
Thus, the second ground raised by the petitioner questioning the
maintainability of the Writ Petition, cannot be sustained.
20. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned Order-in-Original
No.25792/14 dated 20.05.2014 is set aside and the respondent shall refund
the claim made by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the Order-in-
Original, together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the
refund application. The respondent shall endeavour to disburse the refund
15/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
[9/5, 10:35] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No.22117 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
For Respondent : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan
ORDER
The Writ Petition was called through Video Conferencing on
03.08.2020. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner herein had imported one “Escalator in SKD condition”
under a Bill of Entry dated 11.03.2013. Upon import, the petitioner had paid
Additional Duty of Customs at the rate of 4% under Section 3(5) of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 amounting to Rs.4,59,759/-. The Notification
No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 provides for refund of Additional Duty of
Customs paid under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, upon sale
of the imported goods in India, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner
herein, upon sale of the Escalator in India, claimed refund of the Additional
Duty of Customs, in terms of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007.
However, his claim came to be rejected through the impugned Order-in-
2/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
No.1, East Main Road,
Anna Nagar, Western Extension,
Chennai – 600 101. …Petitioner
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner of Custom (Refunds),
Office of the Commissioner of Customs,
Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. …Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records in Order-In-
Original No.25792/2014 Job No.26952/14 dated 20.05.2014 in
S25/SAD/1988/14 – Refunds in F.No.S24/SAD/1035/13 Refunds passed by
the respondent, quash the same as arbitrary and illegal and direct the
respondent to grant refund to the petitioner.
1/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
[9/5, 10:34] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No.22117 of 2014
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts.
19. The aforesaid powers of the High Court to entertain a Writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even though the
petitioner had not exhausted the alternative forum for redressal, has been
reiterated, in various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One such
decision in L.K.Verma vs. HMT Ltd. Reported in AIR 2006 SC 975, holds
that a writ Court may exercise its discretionary judicial power to review
inter-alia in cases where the authorities lack jurisdiction or for enforcement
of fundamental rights or if there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
Thus, the second ground raised by the petitioner questioning the
maintainability of the Writ Petition, cannot be sustained.
20. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned Order-in-Original
No.25792/14 dated 20.05.2014 is set aside and the respondent shall refund
the claim made by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the Order-in-
Original, together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the
refund application. The respondent shall endeavour to disburse the refund
15/18
http://www.judis.nic.in
[9/5, 10:35] Sekarreporter 1: W.P.No.22117 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar
For Respondent : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan
ORDER
The Writ Petition was called through Video Conferencing on
03.08.2020. By consent of both the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for
final disposal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner herein had imported one “Escalator in SKD condition”
under a Bill of Entry dated 11.03.2013. Upon import, the petitioner had paid
Additional Duty of Customs at the rate of 4% under Section 3(5) of the
Customs Tariff Act, 1975 amounting to Rs.4,59,759/-. The Notification
No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 provides for refund of Additional Duty of
Customs paid under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, upon sale
of the imported goods in India, subject to certain conditions. The petitioner
herein, upon sale of the Escalator in India, claimed refund of the Additional
Duty of Customs, in terms of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007.
However, his claim came to be rejected through the impugned Order-in-
2/18
http://www.judis.nic.

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME