Commissioner Of Customs Preventive … vs M/S Raymond Apparel Limited on 2 August, 2025

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