Statutory Auditor’s report to justify exclusion of unjust enrichment, as sought through Deficiency Memo dated 21.05.2009, was already filed by the Appellant in 2004 alongwith Refund Applications as well as in 2007 while re-submitting the duplicate refund applications and thereafter, in compliance to Deficiency Memo of 2012 on 18.02.2013, it was surprising that with all these developments neither refund, as sought was granted, nor any personal hearing was taken up to justify not granting of such refund to the appellant despite the fact that Section 27A of the Customs Act commands that if any duty, not ordered to be refunded under Section 27A(2) of the Customs Act, to the applicant within three months of receipt of its application, there shall be paid to the applicant, interest at the rate as Central Government may specify on or from the date immediately after expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of that duty. Therefore, without the aid of any judicial precedent also, under the Statutory Provision, Respondent Commissioner was duty bound to pay the interest three months after 02.06.2004, on which date applications were filed before them for refund and since no Deficiency Memo as required under Notification No. 34/95-Customs (NT) was sent to the appellant or application was returned back to the appellant within ten working days on its receipt, Respondent Department is to pay interest at the applicable rate, as determined by the Government of India for the entire period for which it had kept applications on hold without disposal. Further the Statute had not distinguished the nature of application for which the terms used by the Department in several Notifications including ‘completed applications’ as acknowledged by the proper officer or ‘deficient application’ as pleaded by Ld. Senior Counsel before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hamdard case, cited supra, would have no relevance so as to hold a contrary view against such Statutory provisions. Hence in view of clear and unambiguous terms contained in Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 and in view of the precedent decision as settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including that of Ranbaxy India, cited supra, the following order is passed:
