IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI (VIRTUAL HEARING)

Customs Appeal No.40724 of 2015 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 01/2015 – TTN (CUS) dated 14.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals – II), Trichy)

Vedanta Limited Appellant SIPCOT Industrial Complex Madurai Byepass Road Thoothukudi – 628 002.

Vs.

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Respondent Custom House, New Harbour Estate Tuticorin – 628 004.

APPEARANCE:

Shri Akshit Malhotra, Advocate for the Appellant Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM Hon’ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical)

FINAL ORDER NO. 40630/2025 Date of Hearing: 09.01.2025 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025 Per M. Ajit Kumar, The present appeal is against Order in Appeal No.01/2015 – TTN (CUS) dated 14.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals – II), Trichy.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed 67 refund claims during the period from August 2013 to November 2013 for an amount of Rs.7,61,48,316/- being the excess duty paid as per the orders of finalization of provisional assessments. After finalization of the provisional assessment, the adjudicating authority issued Order in Original for each In-bond Bills of Entry on different dates, mentioning the refundable excess paid duty amount and that the appellants are eligible for the refund of that excess paid amount. In the meanwhile, the department directed the appellants vide letter dated 16.9.2013 to submit the original importer copies of Ex-bond bills of entry and Chartered Accountant’s certificate on unjust enrichment. Accordingly, after due process of law, the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund of Rs.7,12,70,639/- with respect to 67 refund claims filed between 29.05.2007 and 26.05.2013 on 30.9.2014. He, however, did not order payment of any interest. Aggrieved by the non sanction of refund in the said adjudication order, the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Appellate Authority. Vide the impugned order, the Ld. Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal.

3. We have heard Shri Akshit Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, Ld. Authorized Representative for the respondent-department.

3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant stated that Section 18 and Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (CA 1962) are independent to one another and operate in different fields. Reading Section 18 along with Section 27 ibid. is totally untenable. Sub-section 18(2)(a) clearly provides for suo moto refund to the assessee if, on finalization of the assessments, it is found that the said assessee has paid duty in excess to what it was required to pay. Likewise, the said sub-section also entails suo moto liability upon the assessee in case the duty paid is found to be short paid on finalization. In consonance thereof, sub- section (3) and (4) provides for payment of interest on any short duty paid or on admissible refund, as the case maybe. Sub-section (4)

thereof clearly stipulates that the relevant date for the purpose of computing such interest in the last date of the third month from the date of the order of final assessment. In other words, the interest liability is triggered on expiry of three months from the date of order of final assessment and is to be paid for the entire period till refund is paid at the rate specified under Section 27A. The settled position in law is that refunds are to be automatically sanctioned to an assessee under Section 18 ibid, hence no adverse inference ought to be drawn on account of its filing of the claims, in terms of the established practice. The Ld. Advocate relied upon the judgments in CC Vs Petronet LNG Ltd. reported in 2013 (291) ELT 420 (Tri-Ahmd) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs CC reported in MANU/CB/ 0054/2024. Without prejudice to the above, assuming without admitting that the provisions of Sec