[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
M/S. Khatau Narbheram And vs Assistant Commissioner Of on 11 December, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.34371 of 2025
M/s. Khatau Narbheram and
Company, Gurugram, Haryana .... Petitioner
Mr.Parth Parikh, Advocate along with
Mr.Mukesh Panda, Advocate
-versus-
Assistant Commissioner of
Customs , Paradeep Customs
Division, Jagatsinghpur, Odisha .... Opposite Parties
and others
Mr. Sujan Kumar Roy Choudhury,
Senior Standing Counsel , GST & Central Excise & Customs
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 11.12.2025
01. 1. The memo of appearance filed by Mr.Parth Parikh, Advocate
to argue the case on behalf of petitioner is taken on record.
Similarly, the memo of appearance of Mr.Sujan Kumar Roy
Choudhury, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf
of Central Excise and Customs is taken on record.
2. The instant writ petition is taken out at the admission stage on
the basis of an undisputed facts emanating from the record. The
proceeding for refund of an excess custom duty with interest was
initiated by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of
Customs, Paradeep Customs Division, Paradeep (opposite party
No.1) after having received an adjudication in this regard that the
excess custom duty were charged long back. Since a considerable
period elapsed because of the belated adjudication by the
authority, the interest was claimed as the legitimate dues to the
petitioner was unreasonably withheld by the authority. The said
proceeding came up before the said authority on 29.09.2025 and
a decision of this Court rendered in OTAPL No.29 of 2025
(Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), C.R.Building, Rajaswa
Vihar, Bhubaneswar Vs.M/s.Vedanta Limited) passed on
09.05.2025 was relied upon in support of the claim of interest for
delayed refund.
3. In paragraph-5.7 of the impugned order, the authority
returned the finding to the effect that the judgment of the
jurisdictional High Court has not been accepted by the Reviewing
Authority and the Department is contemplating to file the Special
Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India against the said
order. Interestingly, the proceeding to consider claim for refund
is rejected without recording any independent finding thereupon.
4. It is the cardinal principle of law that the decision rendered
by the High Court or the Supreme Court is binding on the
authority and in the event the authority has a dissent to the
proposition of law as laid down by the Courts, it has a remedy to
move the higher forum as provided in the statute. There is no
embargo created to exhaust the remedy provided in the statute,
but it is incongruous to suggest that mere contemplation to
exhaust such remedy, the authority proceeded to dismiss the said
proceeding. It would invite a chaotic situation if the proceeding is
finally disposed of on sheer assumption that the litigant is
intending to approach the higher forum challenging the order of
this Court which is otherwise binding on the said authority. The
fate of the proceeding before the higher forum is unknown and it
may invite an irreversible situation in the event the litigant who
intended to challenge the binding order emerged unsuccessful.
The proper course should have been adopted to keep the said
proceeding in abeyance for a reasonable time, so that the finality
to the binding judgment is achieved.
5. We do not appreciate the order impugned in the instant writ
petition that on mere contemplation to challenge the binding
order, the proceeding should receive a dismissal/rejection. We,
therefore, set aside the said order. The proceeding initiated by the
petitioner is revived. The authority shall proceed to decide the
said proceeding, in the event the Special Leave Petition assailing
the order dated 09.05.2025 is filed before the Supreme Court and
any order is passed thereunder.
5.1. We, thus, feel that a reasonable period of time should be
provided to exhaust such remedy, and, therefore, the instant
proceeding shall be kept pending for a period of three months
from date. The authority shall take up the instant proceeding after
the said period and in the event there is no order is passed in the
said Special Leave Petition, he shall proceed to decide the same
on merit.
6. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
Bichi
Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO
Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 12-Dec-2025 16:45:41
