JUDGMENT :

Md. Nizamuddin, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner for relief of direction upon the respondent authorities concerned to pay Rs.3,05,414/- to the petitioner as interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Facts in brief involve in this case are as hereunder.

4. Between 6th June, 2018 to 4th March, 2020, petitioner has filed sixteen separate refund applications under Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for refund of alleged excess payment of duty aggregating to Rs.1,40,49,995/-.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that all refunds arise out of the appellate order in question passed by the Commissioner of Customs (appeal). According to petitioner, the refund applications were received and acknowledged by the office of the respondent concerned on the dates mentioned in the chart annexed to the writ petition and that those dates were not disputed by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that no application has been returned under the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995, which prescribes 10 days for return of the application with deficiency memo (Regulation 2 (2)) in case it was found incomplete. Few queries were made by respondent concerned after 8-12 months of such applications, for supply of documents for ministerial and administrative function which the petitioner answered. Refunds were made allegedly after delay of more than 90 days of receipt of applications for refund and for which respondents are liable to pay interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, according to the petitioner.

7. Petitioner in support of its claim of interest submits as follows:

Interest provision becomes applicable after 90 days of receipt of application under 27A of the aforesaid Act.

The defective application is to be returned as prescribed under the aforesaid Regulation. The refund claim by the petitioner is based on appellate orders in question. By virtue of deeming fiction provided in Explanation to Section 27A of the aforesaid Act and appellate orders in question are to be treated as refund orders under Section 27 (2) of the Act. The assessing authority is to execute the order and the respondent concerned has no discretion left to consider refund under Section 27 (1) and (2) of the Act and the proceeding before him is only ministerial, according to the petitioner and query after 7-9 months of receipt of the applications are not deficiency and that the respondents are reading extension provision of time to run interest in Section 27A of the Act which is not there.

8. Petitioner submits that since the respondents have retained the refundable amount for a prolonged period and had unjust gain at the cost of the petitioner it should be made liable to pay interest on interest as damages in the same line as of Sandvic Asia Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 196 ELT 273 as there is no provision under Customs Act. Such prayer is absent in this writ petition.

9. In support of his contention, Mr. Mehta, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner relies on the following judgments:-

(a) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Union of India 273 ELT 3 in Para 9, 10, 11, 12, on the proposition of legal fiction relating to interest liability,

(b) Judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Jindal Drugs Vs. Union of India 367 ELT 591 relating to interest under Section 27 and 27A of the aforesaid Act.

10. Mr. Kundalia, Learned Advocate opposing the writ petition submits as hereunder.

11. Upon scrutiny of the aforesaid refund applications it appears from office record that most of the refund applications submitted by the petitioner/importer, were not complete and several relevant documents pertaining to the refund were missing. Consequently, deficiency memos were issued to the petitioner/importer in respect of the separate refund applications requesting them to submit the documents required. In many cases, the d