Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesCustoms Dept. to Refund Rs. 15 Lakh Wrongly Re-Credited Under Abolished Scheme:...

Customs Dept. to Refund Rs. 15 Lakh Wrongly Re-Credited Under Abolished Scheme: Delhi High Court 

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi High Court has directed the customs department to refund Rs. 15 lakh with 4% simple interest wrongly re-credited under the abolished scheme.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that the re-credit of the amount to the importer’s license was invalid as the relevant scheme had been abolished in 2013.

“The sum of ₹15,00,093 continues to be retained by the Respondents which would not be permissible… Accordingly, it is directed that the Respondents shall refund the said amount along with interest,” the bench stated.

The case arose after CMR Green had imported 197 consignments of aluminium scrap and claimed refund of excess duty paid. While the Customs authorities refunded ₹8.6 crore via RTGS in 2019, they re-credited ₹15 lakh to the importer’s license instead of directly transferring the amount, prompting a legal challenge by the company.

The petitioner contended that the re-crediting mechanism had been scrapped through Public Notice No. 06(RE-2013)/2009-14 dated April 18, 2013. As such, the Customs department had no authority to re-credit the amount to the license instead of issuing a direct refund.

Though CMR Green’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and later before the CESTAT was dismissed on grounds of delay—559 days beyond the statutory limitation—the High Court stepped in to ensure the refund was not unfairly withheld.

The court observed that since the re-crediting scheme had been abolished, retention of the amount by the authorities was untenable and amounted to “unjust enrichment.”

While the Court acknowledged the delay in filing the appeal and reduced the applicable interest from 6% to 4%, it emphasized that the authorities cannot retain money under a scheme that no longer exists.

The court directed the department to release the refund within three months.

Case Details

Case Title: CMR GREEN TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 

Case No.: W.P.(C) 3754/2022

Date:  09/07/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Gulafsha Gupta

Counsel For Respondent: Samiksha Godiyal

Read More: India, US Set to Seal Interim Trade Deal: Agriculture, Processed Foods, and Industrial Tariffs in Focus

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With GST Order Carrying RFN but No Separate DIN or Visible Signature

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling...

Negligible Listing and Disposal of GSTAT Appeals: Supreme Court Asks Tribunal President to Examine Grievance

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking court-monitored institutional reforms...

Rule 96(10) Deemed Omitted From Inception: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Interest Paid on Import IGST

The Bombay High Court has held that no interest could be levied on the...

Officer Who Conducted GST Audit Can’t Issue Notice and Adjudicate Same Proceedings: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a GST adjudication order after finding that the...

More like this

Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere With GST Order Carrying RFN but No Separate DIN or Visible Signature

The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling...

Negligible Listing and Disposal of GSTAT Appeals: Supreme Court Asks Tribunal President to Examine Grievance

The Supreme Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking court-monitored institutional reforms...

Rule 96(10) Deemed Omitted From Inception: Bombay HC Orders Refund of Interest Paid on Import IGST

The Bombay High Court has held that no interest could be levied on the...