Calcutta High Court
Commissioner Of Customs Preventive … vs M/S Raymond Apparel Limited on 2 August, 2025
Author: T.S. Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S Sivagnanam
OD-11
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION [CUSTOMS]
ORIGINAL SIDE
CUSTA/5/2025
IA NO: GA/2/2025
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE KOLKATA
VS
M/S RAYMOND APPAREL LIMITED
BEFORE :
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM
-A N D-
HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
DATE : 2nd August, 2025.
Appearance :
Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya, Adv.
Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Adv. ...for appellant.
Mr. Rahul Tangri, Adv.
Mr. Shavit Betal, Adv. ...for respondent.
The Court :- This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the
order dated 2.5.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in CUSTA/75201/2023.
The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law
for consideration:
"a. whether the refund application was required to be made within one
year from the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of M/s. SRF vs. Commissioner of Customs Chennai
as per provision of sub-section 1B(b) of section 27 of the Customs
Act, 1962?
b. Whether the refund application dated 09.09.2018 filed by the
respondent is time barred and liable to be rejected?
c. Whether the impugned order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the
learned Tribunal is contrary to the provision of section 27 of the
2
Customs Act, 1962 and also not sustainable in view of the Circular
No.24/2004-Cus. Dated 18.03.2004 and the judgment and order of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of ITC Ltd. vs.
CCE, Kolkata-IV ?"
We have heard Mr. Uday Shankar Bhattacharyya, learned senior
standing counsel assisted by Mr. Tapan Bhanja, learned advocate for the
appellant and Mr. Rahul Tangri, learned advocate for the respondent.
The impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is a common
order in two appeals filed by the department challenging the orders passed by
the Commissioner (Appeals), Kolkata in respect of the appeal filed by the
department before the learned Tribunal in CUSTA/75200/2023. The revenue
challenged the same by filing appeal before this Court in CUSTA/2/2025 and
by judgment dated August 2, 2025, the appeal was dismissed. The operative
portion of the judgment reads as follows:
"In the instant case, the respondent has not claimed
interest from the initial date but they have claimed interest only
after expiry of the period of 90 days from the date on which the
application for refund was granted. Therefore, the said objection
raised by the revenue would not arise in the instant case.
For all the above reasons, we find that the learned
Tribunal was fully justified in dismissing the revenue's appeal.
For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the
substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.
The revenue is directed to effect refund in favour of the
respondent together with interest as ordered within a period of
three days from the date of receipt of the server copy of this
order."
3
The above decision will squarely apply to the case on hand except
for the difference in number of bill of entries which is 96 and the amount of
refund ordered is different. Except for the same, in all other respects the
decision in CUSTA/2/2025 would squarely apply to the case on hand.
Thus, following the above decision, this appeal is also dismissed
and the substantial questions of law are answered against the revenue.
The stay application (GA/2/2025) also stands dismissed.
The appellant/department is directed to effect interest as ordered
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this
order.
.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
SM/pkd