The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has allowed an importer’s appeal against the denial of a refund of ₹4,33,931 in interest paid after a technical glitch on the ICEGATE portal prevented a timely customs duty payment from being reflected in the Customs system.

The single-member bench of R. Muralidhar, Member (Judicial), followed the Rajasthan High Court’s decision in M/s. Grain Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. The Tribunal held that the precedent squarely applied because the refund had been rejected solely on the basis of the cut-off date mentioned in the Customs interest waiver order dated April 17, 2023.

Buy Now: Indirect Tax Judgments E-Compilation – October 2026

The dispute concerned Bill of Entry filed by the importer.

The importer submitted that it had remitted customs duty within time. However, technical problems with the ICEGATE common portal prevented the payment from being reflected as received in the Customs system. Consequently, it was compelled to pay interest of ₹4,33,931.

To substantiate its claim, the importer relied on its bank statement showing that the amount had been debited on April 20, 2023 itself. Its contention was that the interest liability arose because of a technical failure despite timely remittance of duty.

The importer relied on the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order dated April 17, 2023, which granted waiver of interest for Bills of Entry filed up to April 13, 2023. It also referred to an advisory dated July 27, 2023 concerning the waiver of interest.

The lower authorities rejected the refund claim because the importer’s Bill of Entry had been filed on April 20, 2023, after the cut-off specified in the waiver order.

Defending that decision before CESTAT, the Revenue argued that the waiver order specifically restricted relief to Bills of Entry filed within the stipulated period. Since the importer’s Bill of Entry fell outside that period, the departmental representative maintained that the rejection was justified.

Advocate Rahul Dhanuka, appearing for the importer, submitted that the same issue had already been decided by the Rajasthan High Court in the Grain Energy case, reported as 2025 (5) TMI 421 – Rajasthan High Court.

The importer argued that the High Court had treated the July 27, 2023 advisory as an acknowledgment that the relevant technical glitches continued until that date. The precedent also concerned a payment initiated on April 20, 2023, after the cut-off mentioned in the waiver order.

On this basis, the importer contended that the date restriction could not justify denial of relief in its case.

CESTAT reproduced the relevant portions of the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment, including its observation that the advisory effectively acknowledged the existence of technical glitches until July 27, 2023.

The High Court had also referred to the principle recognised in Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. that interest should not be demanded from a person for a delay in crediting money to the government account when the delay results from technical glitches.

In Grain Energy, the High Court had quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to refund the interest within three months of receiving a certified copy of its judgment.

That three-month direction belonged to the High Court precedent reproduced in the order. CESTAT did not separately prescribe a three-month refund deadline in the present appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the sole ground for rejecting importer’s refund was the date mentioned in the April 17, 2023 waiver order.

The Tribunal observed, “Since the only ground on which the refund was rejected is the date mentioned in the Control Order dated 17.04.2023, I find that in the present case, the decision of Rajasthan High Court would be squarely applicable.”

CESTAT set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the importer would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Income Tax Reopening Beyond 4 Years On Mere Change Of Opinion Invalid: Gujarat High Court