JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hasit Dave for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondents.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to respondent no.2 – Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Dashrath, Vadodara to refund the amount of Rs.23,62,796.00 with interest from the date of levy till final payment at the rate of 15% per annum.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are engaged in trading of imported goods such as Cast Alloy Aluminum Wheels or Alloy Road Wheels used for Motor Vehicles.

3.1) The petitioners filed three Bills of Entry Nos. (1) 8195940 dated 4.2.2015, (2) 9212058 dated 12.5.2015 and (3) 9308623 dated 21.5.2015 for clearance of their imported goods.

3.2) On the above imported goods, a Provisional Anti Dumping Duty at specified rate was imposed under the Provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification No.15/2014 dated 11.4.2014 which was valid for a period of six months as per the provisions of the law and as such, validity of the said notification expired on 11.10.2014.

3.3) Another Notification No.21/2015 dated 22.5.2015 was issued imposing Anti Dumping Duty at the same rate as specified in the Provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification for a period of five years.

3.4) According to the petitioners, there was no Anti Dumping Duty leviable between the expiry of first Provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification No.15/2014 dated 11.4.2014 and Notification No.21/2015 dated 22.5.2015. However, the petitioners were directed by the respondent authorities to pay Anti Dumping Duty of Rs.23,62,796.00 as per Notification No.21/2015 dated 22.5.2015 on the imported goods and accordingly, the petitioner paid such Anti Dumping Duty so as to take delivery of the goods.

3.5) The petitioners by letter dated 15.10.2015 requested the respondent authorities to refund the aforesaid amount as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of CIT, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports reported in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (SC), wherein the Apex Court observed that if there is a gap between the Provisional Anti Dumping Duty Notification and the regular final Anti Dumping Duty Notification in the intervening period, no Anti Dumping Duty is payable.

3.6) The respondent authorities by letter dated 17.12.2015 informed the petitioners that refund cannot be allowed as the Anti Dumping Duty was levied as per the provisions of Notification No.21/2015 dated 22.5.2015 with effect from 11.4.2014 and therefore, when the goods were imported by the petitioners, the Anti Dumping Duty was leviable as per the Notification No.21/2015.

3.7) The petitioners thereafter reiterated the request to refund the Anti Dumping Duty paid by the petitioners vide letter dated 25.12.2015 again relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of G.M. Exports (supra).

3.8) The petitioners received the show cause notice dated 10.2.2016 from the respondents calling upon to show cause as to why refund claim of Rs.23,62,796.00 should not be rejected under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Notification No.21/2015 dated 22.5.2015.

3.9) The petitioners filed the written submissions dated 15.7.2016 reiterating that the petitioners are entitled to refund as per the decision of the Apex Court in case of G.M. Exports (supra).

3.10) However, the respondent authorities passed the order-in-original dated 30.08.2016 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioners.

3.11) The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2016 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Ahmedabad who by order dated 1.05.2017 remanded the proceedings to the original adjudicating authority to pass a reasoned order after following the principles of natural justice and considering the decision of the Apex Court in case of G.M. Exports (supra).

3.12) The Assistant Commissioner again by order dated 15.03.2018 rejected the refund claim of the petitioners in the reman