$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 24^th September, 2025 Pronounced on: 30^th March, 2026 Uploaded on:30^th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 1225/2024 JAINA MARKETING AND ASSOCIATES .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mr. Mukesh Jain and Mr. Ajay Goyal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.

Yamit Jeitley and Mr. Naman Choula, Advs. WITH + W.P.(C) 1291/2024 M/S JAINA MOBILE INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mr. Mukesh Jain and Mr. Ajay Goyal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.

Yamit Jeitley and Mr. Naman Choula, Advs. WITH + W.P.(C) 1297/2024 INTEX TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mr. Mukesh Jain and Mr. Ajay Goyal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.

Yamit Jeitley and Mr. Naman Choula, Advs. WITH + W.P.(C) 1325/2024 U T ELECTRONICS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan, Mr. Mukesh Jain and Mr. Ajay Goyal, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC with Mr.

YamitJeitley and Mr. Naman Choula, Advs.

Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC with Mr.

Sujeet Kumar, Adv.

WITH + W.P.(C) 10977/2017 LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. R. Ramachandran, SSC with Mr.

Prateek Dhir, Adv.

AND + W.P.(C) 11319/2017 LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak and Mr. Agrim Arora, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. R. Ramachandran, SSC with Mr.

Prateek Dhir, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh J.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

I. Factual Background

2. The present petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raising challenge inter alia to the respective orders-in- original vide which the refund applications filed by the Petitioners have been decided. In all these cases, the Adjudicating Authority has allowed the refund application of the Petitioners, however, no interest on refund has been granted to them.

I(A). Brief Facts in W.P.(C) 10977/2017 and W.P.(C) 11319/2017

3. The brief background giving rise to W.P.(C) 10977/2017 and W.P.(C) 11319/2017 is that the Petitioner- Lava International Ltd., is a company which is inter alia engaged in the business of importing mobile phones, tablets etc. and selling it in India. From 2^nd March, 2015 to 16^th July, 2015 the Petitioner had imported mobile handsets, including cellular phones, tablets, parts of mobile phone, and had filed 1044 Bills of Exchange (hereinafter, ‘BoEs’) in total, classifying the imported goods under respective tariff headings.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner in these two writ petitions, that the self- assessment of the BoEs was done by the Petitioner by using the ICEGATE (Indian Customs Electronic Commerce/Electronic Data interchange (EC/EDI) Gateway) portal, an e-commerce portal of the Central Board of Excise & Customs wherein there was no option provided for the Petitioner to avail the exemption in terms of the Notification No. 12/2015- C.E., dated 1^st March, 2015 for concessional rate. Accordingly, the Petitioner claims that vide its letter dated 16^th May, 2015 they had informed the Customs Department that the EDI system was not allowing it to pay Countervailing Duty (hereinafter, ‘CVD’) at concessional rate and hence, they should be allowed to file BOEs manually, else the Petitioner will have to pay the CVD amount under protest.

5. Eventually, with respect to the said imports, the Petitioner had paid 12.5% of the additional Customs Duty in terms of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under protest and cleared the goods.

6. Thereafter, the payment of duty under the said 1044 BoEs were challenged by the Petitioner before the Office of Commissioner o