IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 33064 of 2008(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NARAYAN NAMBIAR MELOTHS, ERINJERI HOUSE, KOTOOR P.O., KASARGOD-23. BY ADVS. MR.P.A.AUGUSTINE (AREEKATTEL), MR.T.R.JAGADEESH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.33064/2008-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.07/2007 DTD. 04/04/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TR 6 CHALLAN DTD. 02/05/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER-IN-APPEAL NO.481/07 DTD. 08/10/07. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 06/11/07. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO. 771 TO 782 OF 2008 DTD. 14/07/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 20/01/08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.S18/A/37/2008 R.CUS. DTD. 03/06/2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 33064 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondent to process the refund application submitted by the petitioner and refund the amount that is due to him. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner had imported a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado car. In respect of aforesaid vehicle, proceedings under the Customs Act were initiated and an adjudication order was passed and the petitioner was called upon to pay duty, fine and penalty. He paid the amount due and the vehicle was also released. Subsequently on the production of TR 6 Challan, the aforesaid vehicle was also got registered. 3. Against the adjudication order referred to above, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by Exhibit P3 order, reduced the duty, fine and penalty. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a refund application. However that was not entertained on the ground that the petitioner had not produced original of the TR 6 Challan and what was produced W.P.(C) No. 33064/ 2008 2 was only an attested copy. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition was filed seeking the prayers referred to above. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to them, production of original of the TR 6 challan is a mandatory requirement for processing the refund application. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. In this writ petition, the respondent has no dispute about the remittance made by the petitioner or about the identity of the person who remitted or about the amount that is due to be refunded to the petitioner. Therefore, the only contention raised against the petitioner is that TR 6 Challan he produced was only an attested copy, which in my view is purely a technical contention and cannot be accepted. 6. This is all the more so for the reason that counsel for the petitioner made available before me copy of clarification order issued by the Government of India, vide F.No.275/37/2K- CX.8A,dated 2/01/2002. In the said clarification, it is stated that a simple letter from the person who made the deposit, requesting for return of the amount, along with the appellate W.P.(C) No. 33064/ 2008 3 order and attested Xerox copy of the Challan in form TR 6 would suffice for processing the refund application. From what is stated above, it is evident that in this case, the petitioner has fully complied with the aforesaid requirement laid down in this clarification. 7. In view of the above reasons , the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to process the refund application made by the petitioner, and allow refund of the amount due to him, in implementation of Exhibit P3, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm