The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the respondent to process the petitioner's request for refund after the appellate order, and the determination that the petitioner's claim was not barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 07.11.2022, passed by the respondents, whereby its application for refund was rejected. The petitioner further prays that directions be issued to the respondents to process its claim for refund of Extra Duty Deposit (hereafter `EDD') of Rs.13,53,326/- in a time bound manner.

2. The petitioner claims that it is engaged in the business of importing goods from various overseas entities including some that are related to the petitioner.

3. During the period of April, 2014 to December, 2017, the petitioner had imported certain goods from Sentec E&E Co. Ltd., Taiwan and other associated companies.

4. The said imports were from related parties, thus, the same were subject to assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (hereafter `SVB') in terms of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007.

5. While those proceedings were pending, the goods in question were cleared on provisional assessment basis on payment of EDD of 1% or 5% in terms of Circular No. 11/2001-Cus dated 23.02.2001 and Circular No. 1/1998-Cus dated 01.01.1998.

6. The proceedings before SVB were finalised and pursuant to the value of the goods as finalised, the petitioner claimed that Rs.57,52,076 became refundable. In the circumstances, on 19.02.2019, the petitioner filed an application for refund of EDD before the learned Assistant Commissioner of Customs (respondent no. 1). The said application was partly allowed by order dated 20.06.2019. Refund claim for an amount of Rs.43,21,974 was sanctioned; claim of Rs.76,776 was rejected on the ground that the challans were unavailable; and the refund of an amount aggregating to Rs.13,53,326/-was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not established that it had not passed on the duty to its customers and, thus, not satisfied the bar of unjust enrichment.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2019, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi. The petitioner contended that EDD was in the nature of a deposit and therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment ere inapplicable to deposit of EDD. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the said contention and passed an order dated 09.04.2021, setting aside the order dated 20.06.2019, passed by respondent no. 1 to the extent of denial of refund of Rs.13,53,326/-.

8. Notwithstanding the petitioner had prevailed in his challenge to the order dated 20.06.2019, whereby its application for refund of Rs.13,53,326/- was rejected, the respondents did not process the petitioner's application for refund of EDD. Undisputedly, this would be the necessary consequence of the order dated 09.04.2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeal).

9. On 22.07.2022, the petitioner made a written request, essentially, calling upon the respondents give effect to the appellate order dated 20.06.2019 and refund the balance amount of Rs.13,53,326/-.

10. The petitioner's request for this refund was treated as a fresh application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter `the Customs Act') and was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the same was not filed within limitation.

11. It is apparent from the facts as noted above that the petitioner's written request dated 22.07.2022, seeking refund of the balance amount was not an application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, but merely a request to the respondents to act in accordance with law and give effect to the appellate order dated 20.06.2019. The concerned authority overlooked the fact that the petitioner's application for refund of EDD was made on 19.02.2019.

12. Once the order dated 20.06.2019, partly rejecting the said application had been set aside, the natural corollary would be to process the said application and to grant the refund, if otherwise due.

13. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, h