COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. PETRONET LNG LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Stay Petition and Appeal are filed by the Revenue against OIA No. 42/2012/CUS/COMMR(A)/AHD dated 29 -3 -2012. After hearing both sides for some time on the stay petition, we find that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this juncture. Accordingly, we dismiss the stay petition filed by the Revenue, appeal itself is taken for disposal.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arises for consideration are that the Respondent herein had filed refund claim of Rs. 3,45,68,432/ - arising out of finalization of provisional assessment of Bills of Entry. The Assistant Commissioner (Customs) Surat sanctioned the amount, but ordered the same to be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Aggrieved by such an order, the Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (A). The Commissioner of Customs (A) vide OIA No. 214 dated 27 -10 -2009 set aside the orders of the adjudicating authority of crediting the same to the consumer welfare fund ordered the same to be given to respondent. The said order -in -appeal was not acceptable to the department and they preferred an appeal before CESTAT, Ahmedabad. CESTAT, vide its order dated 31 -5 -2010 rejected the appeal.

(3.) THE ld. Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) after taking us through the case records, submits that the lower authorities have erred in sanctioning the interest to the appellant. It is his submission that the assessment were provisional during 2006 and were finalized on 24 -1 -2008 to 7 -3 -2008. It is his submission that the amount of excess duty paid is refunded on 4 -8 -2011. It is also his submission that, apparently, there was no delay in payment of the refund amount to respondent -department,' is not liable to pay interest. The interest liability arises only from the finalization of the provisional bills of entries. It is also his submission that provisional assessment of bills of entries was ordered prior to 13 -7 -2006, hence refund was allowed without applying the principles of unjust enrichment as envisaged under Section 27 of the Act. It is his submission that since there is no provision for giving interest before 13 -7 -2006, question of payment of interest does not arise.