- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent, i.e., customs department to refund a sum of Rs.47,14,188/ - and release the bank guarantee furnished to it. The petitioner had imported a consignment of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate from Malaysia and Sri Lanka and landed them at ICD, Tughlakabad. The Revenue Intelligence Authorities conducted raids at the petitioner's factory and premises on 21.11.2006 and drew samples. The petitifoner sought provisional release of the goods and deposited certain amounts through demand drafts on 12.11.2007. The assessing authorities claimed differential duty to the extent of Rs.7,14,188/ - and at the same time show cause notice was issued claiming larger amounts. By an order in original, the demands were confirmed and the petitioner's liability was fixed at Rs.73,92,399/ - on 31.03.2008. The petitioner appealed to the CESTAT; in an interim order, the CESTAT noticed that since over and above Rs.7,14,188/ - deposited earlier, a further amount of Rs.20 lakhs had been deposited as an interim measure. It, therefore, permitted the petitioner to deposit the second amount of Rs.20 lakhs and waived the condition of pre - deposit of the balance amount. By its final reasoned order of 6.7.2011, the CESTAT allowed the appeal pending before it and held that there was no evidence to show that the importer/petitioner had undervalued the goods as was alleged. The findings of the Tribunal in this regard are as follows: - "9. The test report shows that the sample was of mixture of different fatty acids therefore in these circumstances we find no ground to concludes that the importer had mis -declared the goods by declaring the same as Mixed Fatty Acid. In respect of valuation we find that the Revenue has enhanced the value on the basis of imports made as mentioned in annexure 3 and 4 of the Show Cause Notice. In these annexures the Palm Fatty Acid is imported at the lower price than declared by the importer. For example in annexure 3 of the Palm Fatty Acid is imported at the price of US $ 170 per M.T. and in annexure 4 the goods were imported at US $ 200 per M.T. as stated above. As per the Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules in such a situation the lowest value has to be taken for determination of the value of goods. In the present case the lowest value is less than the value declared by the Appellants. There is no evidence on record to show that the importer has paid any consideration over and above the value declared to the supplier of the goods. Therefore in these circumstances we find merit in the contention of appellant. The impugned order is set aside and Appeals are allowed."
(3.) THE petitioner applied for refund of the amounts deposited by application on 27.7.2012. A copy of that application has been annexed to the petition. It is alleged that on 15.2.2013 and subsequent dates, reminders were given to the authorities to deal with the claim. Eventually, the refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 17.10.2013. The Commissioner was of the view that the refund claim was made on 14.8.2012 after expiry of one year from the date of the CESTAT's final order, i.e., 6.7.2011. The petitioner's counsel submits that the customs authorities;