Case Details: Grain Energy Pvt. Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner, Customs, ICD, Jodhpur (2025) 29 Centax 425 (Raj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati & Chandra Prakash Shrimali, JJ.
- Ms Priyanka Rathi with Shri Chirag Mathur, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Rajvendra Sarswat, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an importer engaged in the clearance of goods under the Customs Act, 1962, filed the bill of entry and promptly made payment of the assessed customs duty to the authorised bank within one day of receipt of the bill. However, due to technical glitches in the functioning of the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) facility on the Common Portal, the amount paid by the petitioner was not reflected in the Government account within the prescribed time under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. Relying solely on the delayed Government-side reflection, the Customs authorities treated the payment as belated and proceeded to levy interest on the petitioner under the said section.
The petitioner challenged the levy in Rajasthan High Court, asserting that the delay was not attributable to any default on its part, but arose due to admitted technical issues in the Government’s digital infrastructure. The petitioner placed reliance on Order No. 03/2023-Customs (NT) dated 17-04-2023 issued under the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, which acknowledged that the ECL-related system issues had been resolved only to a large extent, not entirely. Further, the petitioner produced the Advisory dated 27-07-2023 issued by the Directorate General of Systems, which categorically clarified that, for ICEGATE-registered users, the effective date of rectification of technical issues referred to in the Third Order would be 27-07-2023, thereby admitting continued systemic defects until that date.
CESTAT Held
The Hon’ble High Court held that where the assessee made timely payment to the authorised bank, any subsequent delay in credit to the Government account due to system errors cannot be attributed to the assessee. It ruled that interest under Section 47 was not leviable in such circumstances, and any interest already collected was liable to be refunded under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment reinforces that assessees cannot be penalised for procedural delays arising from acknowledged technical failures within the Government’s own infrastructure.
List of Cases Cited
- Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 289 (Guj.) — Relied on [Paras 4.14, 19]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- M.F. (D.R.) Order No. 3/2023-Cus. (N.T.), dated 17-4-2023 [Paras 4.8, 11]
List of Notifications Cited
- M.F. (D.R.) Order No. 3/2023-Cus. (N.T.), dated 17-4-2023 [Paras 4.8, 11]
