Judgment : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or Direction of appropriate nature to set aside the Impugned Order dated November 21, 2023 passed by the respondent No.1; (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction directing the Respondent to grant refund of INR. 2,95,781/- along with interest; (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or Order or Direction directing the Respondent No.2 to extend the application of Custom Order No.3/2023 dated April 17, 2023; (d) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case; (e) Dispense with the service of the advance notices upon the respondents. (f) Exempt the petitioner from filing the certified/original copies of documents Annexures with permission to place on record true typed/photocopies of the same. (g) Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and engaged in commercial Solar Projects. 3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Refund Rejection Order No.23-24/2023-24/Refund dated 21.11.2023 issued by respondent No.1. 4. Ms. Priyanka Rathi, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the respondents had erroneously rejected the refund of the interest claimed by the petitioner on the ground that such refund is not admissible, in light of the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, Order No.03/2023-Customs (NT) dated 17.04.2023 (“Customs Order”) read with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1962”). 4.1 Learned counsel further submits that Section 27 of the Act of 1962 is a general provision that allows any person to claim a refund of duty or interest paid by him or borne by him, through an application to the appropriate authority. Learned counsel contends that the relevant circular specifically enables such refund of interest, in cases, where technical glitches were encountered on specific dates. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner filed the refund claims under the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, Order No.03/2023-Customs (NT) dated 17.04.2023 (“Customs Order”) read in conjunction with Section 27 of the Act of 1962. 4.2 Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner filed the refund claims under the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, Order No.03/2023-Customs (NT) dated 17.04.2023 (“Customs Order”) read in conjunction with Section 27 of the Act of 1962. Learned counsel maintains that the refund claims should be processed since the customs duty was not properly payable due to technical issues involving the non-integration of ICEGATE with the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL). 4.3 Learned counsel has drawn the Court’s attention to Circular No.09/2023-Customs dated 30.03.2023 issued by Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (for short ‘CBIC’). The circular initiated the phased implementation of ECL in Customs effective from 01.04.2023, but due to certain technical glitches in the functioning of ECL, which was being phased on a Common Portal, the interest was provided to be waived off subject to the technical issue having been resolved at the Common Portal. 4.4 Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner made payments to the authorized Bank promptly after receiving the bill of entry on 17.04.2023 and 19.04.2023. However, such payments could not be completed due to technical glitches in the Common Portal, and thus, the interest has been wrongly imposed and the Import Duty to the extent of interest component was to be refunded. 4.5 Learned counsel has taken this Court towards Annexure-8, which clearly demonstrates that on 20.04.2023, two payment entries were marked as successful in the concerned Bank’s status record. However, the third party integration status for these transactions is shown as failed. 4.6 Learned counsel has further referred to the order dated 21.11.2023, which, in accordance with the aforementioned circular, confirmed the petitioner’s eligibility for interest refund with respect to the subject bill of entry. 4.7 Learned counsel has additionally drawn the Court’s attention to order dated 17.04.2023 (Annexure-7), issued by the concerned Director, which noted that the technical difficulties to a large extent had been substantially resolved by 13.04.2023. 4.8 Learned counsel further submits that the language of the order clearly indicates that when the notification dated 17.04.2023 was issued regarding technical difficulties on the Common Portal with authorized Banks, these technical issues had not been fully resolved. 4.8 Learned counsel further submits that the language of the order clearly indicates that when the notification dated 17.04.2023 was issued regarding technical difficulties on the Common Portal with authorized Banks, these technical issues had not been fully resolved. 4.9 Learned counsel also submits that once the bill of entries were returned, the necessary payments were made in accordance with the aforementioned notifications read in conjunction with Section 47 of the Act of 1962, and thus, the waiver of interest ought to have been granted. 4.10 Learned counsel further submits that any difficulty in processing the payment due to technical glitches on the part of the respondents cannot be attributed to the petitioner for the purpose of levying interest. 4.11 Learned counsel has highlighted from the order dated 17.04.2023 that the waiver contained in the order was to be given effect from the date when system inability at the Common Portal was resolved, as certified by the Director General of Systems (for short ‘D.G. Systems’) and the same shall also be governed by Section 27 of the Act of 1962. 4.12 Learned counsel has then taken this Court to the advisory issued by the D.G. System for operationalisation of the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023 dated 17.04.2023 and the consequential regularization of electronic bill of entry in case of manual Out of Charge (OOC) given in the wake of glitches in the implementation of ECL facility since 01.04.2023 as issued by the ICEGATE on 27.07.2023. The advisory read that for the purpose of computing the date of removal of system inability, the ICEGATE registered users whose wallets containing the released blocked funds, the date would be deemed as the date of issue of this Advisory which in this case is 27.07.2023. Thus, the D.G. Systems which is the authority for operation of waiver contained in the order dated 17.04.2023 as per Advisory has scheduled a date of removal of system inability to be 27.07.2023. 4.13 Learned counsel, thus, submits that the impugned order is contrary to law and the appropriate refund out to be granted to the petitioner. 4.14 Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 289 (Guj.) on 14.11.2019. The relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “12. 4.14 Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 289 (Guj.) on 14.11.2019. The relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder: “12. From the facts as emerging from the record, it is manifest that despite the fact that the petitioner had approached them at the earliest point of time, the respondent authorities maintained silence for a considerable period of time and did not provide remedial measures till directed by this court. The errors in uploading the return were not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner but on account of error in the system. In these circumstances, it would be unreasonable and inequitable on the part of the respondents to saddle the petitioner with interest on the amount of tax payable for August 2017, despite the fact that the petitioner had discharged its tax liability for such period well within time.” 5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajvendra Sarswat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the technical glitches were substantially resolved to a large extent by 13.04.2023. 5.1 Learned counsel further submits that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs was authorized to waive interest payable under Section 47 (2) of the Act of 1962 until the date when the system inability was fully resolved. 5.2 Learned counsel contends that since the bill of entry, on which, the duty payment for the specific bill of entry was initiated after 13.04.2023 (on 20.04.2023), therefore, the order in question will not help the petitioner. 5.3 Learned counsel further submits that the circular dated 17.04.2023 was only applicable for the interest payable under 47(2) of the Act of 1962 for the period from 01.04.2023 upto and including 13.04.2023 in respect of such goods where the payment of import duty was to be made from the amount available in ECL. 5.4 Learned counsel also submits that Section 47(2) of the Act of 1962, stipulates that once the bill of entry is returned and the payment has to be made within one day, as prescribed under Section Section 47 of the Act of 1962. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the material available on record. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused the material available on record. 7. This Court finds that the petitioner being a Company and an importer was seeking a refund claim under the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, Order No.03/2023-Customs (NT) dated 17.04.2023. The petitioner filed the bill of entry and then deposited the import duty against the respective bill of entries, which were returned on 19.04.2023, and initiated the payment process within one day as evident by Annexure-8, which demonstrates successful payment to the concerned Bank on 20.04.2023. 8. The bone of contention is that while the phased implementation of ECL in Customs was being initiated from 01.04.2023, there arose certain technical glitches in the functioning of ECL facility at the Common Portal, and thus, the delay in payment has attracted interest which the petitioner seeks refund of. 9. This Court takes note of Section 47 of the Act of 1962, which provides for the payment of import duty, which reads as follows: “ 47. 9. This Court takes note of Section 47 of the Act of 1962, which provides for the payment of import duty, which reads as follows: “ 47. Clearance of goods for home consumption.— [(1)] Where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and the importer has paid the import duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer may make an order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption: [Provided that such order may also be made electronically through the customs automated system system on the basis or risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria: Provided further that] the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, permit certain class of importers to make deferred payment of said duty or any charges in such manner as may be provided by rules.] (2) The importer shall pay the import duty— (a) on the date of presentation of the bill of entry in the case of self assessment; or (b) within one day (excluding holidays) from the date on which the bill of entry is returned to him by the proper officer for payment of duty in the case of assessment, reassessment or provisional assessment; (c) in the case of deferred payment under the proviso to sub-section (1), from such due date as may be specified by rules made in this behalf, and if he fails to pay the duty within the time so specified, he shall pay interest on the duty not paid or short-paid till the date of its payment, at such rate, not less than ten per cent. but not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as may be fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette.” 10. This Court has also seen Section 27 of the Act of 1962 whereby any person can claim refund of any duty or interest paid by him. Section 27 of the Act of 1962 is reproduced hereunder: “[27. but not exceeding thirty-six per cent. per annum, as may be fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette.” 10. This Court has also seen Section 27 of the Act of 1962 whereby any person can claim refund of any duty or interest paid by him. Section 27 of the Act of 1962 is reproduced hereunder: “[27. Claim for refund of duty.—3[(1) Any person claiming refund of any duty or interest, — (a) paid by him; or (b) borne by him, may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest: Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, such application shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1), as it stood before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2): Provided further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest. [Provided also that where the amount of refund claimed is less than rupees one hundred, the same shall not be refunded.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-section, ?the date of payment of duty or interest in relation to a person, other than the importer, shall be construed as ?the date of purchase of goods by such person. (1A) The application under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 28C) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of duty or interest, in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by him and the incidence of such duty or interest, has not been passed on by him to any other person. (1B) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitation of one year shall be computed in the following manner, namely:— (a) in the case of goods which are exempt from payment of duty by a special order issued under sub-section (2) of section 25, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of issue of such order; (b) where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; (c) where any duty is paid provisionally under section 18, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof or in case of re-assessment, from the date of such re- assessment.] (2) If, on receipt of any such application, the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] is satisfied that the whole or any part of the [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] paid by the applicant is refundable, he may make an order accordingly and the amount so determined shall be credited to the Fund: Provided that the amount of [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] as determined by the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] under the foregoing provisions of this sub-section shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to — (a) the [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] paid by the importer, [or the exporter, as the case may be] if he had not passed on the incidence of such 3[duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] to any other person; (b) the 3[duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] on imports made by an individual for his personal use; (c) the 1[duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] borne by the buyer, if he had not passed on the incidence of such 1[duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] to any other person; (d) the export duty as specified in section 26; (e) drawback of duty payable under sections 74 and 75; (f) the 1[duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] borne by any other such class of applicants as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; [(g) the duty paid in excess by the importer before an order permitting clearance of goods for home consumption is made where— (i) such excess payment of duty is evident from the bill of entry in the case of self-assessed bill of entry; or (ii) the duty actually payable is reflected in the reassessed bill of entry in the case of reassessment:] Provided further that no notification under clause (f) of the first proviso shall be issued unless in the opinion of the Central Government the incidence of 1[duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] has not been passed on by the persons concerned to any other person. (3) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal, 3[National Tax Tribunal] or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the regulations made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force, no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2). (4) Every notification under clause (f) of the first proviso to sub-section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament, if it is sitting, as soon as may be after the issue of the notification, and, if it is not sitting, within seven days of its re-assembly, and the Central Government shall seek the approval of Parliament to the notification by a resolution moved within a period of fifteen days beginning with the day on which the notification is so laid before the House of the People and if Parliament makes any modification in the notification or directs that the notification should cease to have effect, the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder. (5) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any notification issued under clause (f) of the first proviso to sub-section (2), including any such notification approved or modified under sub-section (4), may be rescinded by the Central Government at any time by notification in the Official Gazette.]” 11. The circular dated 17.04.2023 had of course provided for the refund of interest until the date of system inability removal, and for an additional three days thereafter, as stipulated in Annexure- 7. This circular specifically addressed the waiver of interest payable under Section 47(2) of the Act of 1962 for the period from 01.04.2023 upto and including 13.04.2023 in respect of such goods where the payment of import duty was to be made from the amount available in ECL. 12. This circular specifically addressed the waiver of interest payable under Section 47(2) of the Act of 1962 for the period from 01.04.2023 upto and including 13.04.2023 in respect of such goods where the payment of import duty was to be made from the amount available in ECL. 12. This Court observes that while issuing the order dated 17.04.2023, the authority itself was conscious of the fact that the technical glitches admittedly were there, but removed to the large extent by 13.04.2023, but the authority in its order itself stipulated that the duty of the interest which has been paid shall be open for waiver from the date of removal of such system inability at the Common Portal as certified by the D.G. Systems. Para 3 of the order dated 17.04.2023 at Page 78 (Annexure-7) reads as follows: “3. The waiver contained in this Order shall be given effect if the following conditions are fulfilled: (a) the duty and interest has been paid within 3 days (including holidays) from the date of removal of such system inability at the Common Portal, which shall be certified by the DG Systems. (b) the importer undertakes at the port of import to not pass on the incidence of such interest paid; and (c) the provisions of section 27 of Customs Act 1962 shall govern the consequential refund of such interest paid.” 13. This Court finds that the advisory issued by the D.G. Systems which is the backbone of the determination of the date of the technical glitches which would be there in the implementation of the ECL facility, which require the D.G. Systems to pronounce and certify the same. 14. This Court has also perused the advisory issued on 27.07.2023 by the D.G. Systems, in which, the advisory for operationalisation of the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023 dated 17.04.2023 and consequential regularization of electronic bill of entry in the case of manual Out of Charge (OOC) given in the wake of glitches in the implementation of ECL facility since 01.04.2023 has been prescribed. The relevant part of the advisory reads as follows: “2. In order to operationalise the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023 dated April 17, 2023 and to regularise such Bills of Entry in the System for which manual OOC was given, the Board i.e. CBIC has approved the following procedure: (a) ………. (b) ………. (c) ………. (d) ………. The relevant part of the advisory reads as follows: “2. In order to operationalise the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023 dated April 17, 2023 and to regularise such Bills of Entry in the System for which manual OOC was given, the Board i.e. CBIC has approved the following procedure: (a) ………. (b) ………. (c) ………. (d) ………. (e) For the purpose of point (d) above, the ‘Date of Removal of System Inability’ would be taken as under: (i) For the ICEGATE registered users whose wallets containing the released blocked funds were made accessible as on the date of this Advisory, ‘Date of Removal of the System Inability’ would be deemed as the date of issue of this Advisory; For example, if the date of issue of this advisory is, say, July 27, 2023, then the user would have to pay duty along with interest by July 30, 2023. Failure to do so would make him ineligible for interest waiver by way of subsequent refund of the same in terms of the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023 dated April 17, 2023. (ii) For other ICEGATE registered users, if any, the ‘Date of Removal of System Inability’ would be the date on which the wallet containing the released blocked funds would be made available. Such users would be communicated through e-mail by ICEGATE HelpDesk about the removal of such System Inability. For example, if the date on which the wallet containing the released blocked funds were made accessible is say August 01, 2023, then the user would have to pay duty along with interest by August 04, 2023. Failure to do so would make him ineligible for interest waiver and subsequent refund of the same in terms of the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023 dated April 17, 2023. (iii) For the IEC’s which are not yet registered at ICEGATE, the ‘Date of Removal of the System Inability’ would be the date on which such IECs get registered on ICEGATE and receive the communication from ICEGATE HelpDesk on the registered e-mail Id of the IEC user containing the credentials for logging into the ICEGATE portal.” 15. The aforementioned advisory thus, clearly envisages that for ICEGATE registered users, the date of removal of the system inability, in context to the third order dated 17.04.2023 would be the date of issue of advisory which is 27.07.2023. The aforementioned advisory thus, clearly envisages that for ICEGATE registered users, the date of removal of the system inability, in context to the third order dated 17.04.2023 would be the date of issue of advisory which is 27.07.2023. Thus, practically, the D.G. Systems has acknowledged that the technical glitches were existing till 27.07.2023. 16. This Court observes that provision of law under Section 47 of the Act of 1962 clearly provides for payment of import duty by the importer on the date of presentation of the bill of entry in case of self assessment and within one day (excluding holidays) from the date on which the bill of entry is returned to him by the proper officer for payment of duty in the case of assessment, reassessment or provisional assessment. 17. In this case, the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that bill of entry had been returned on 19.04.2023 whereas within 24 hours, a genuine effort to make the necessary payments vide Annexure-8 were made and in pursuance of bill of entries, the necessary payments were forwarded to the concerned Bank, which is reflected in Annexure-8. 18. This Court finds that the order dated 17.04.2023 acknowledged the technical difficulties to have been resolved only to a large extent, but not entirely. The order dated 17.04.2023 itself stipulates the requirement of waiver of the interest as per the certification given by the D.G. Systems regarding the duty and interest from the date of removal of such system inability at the Common Portal. Since, the date of removal of system inability at the common portal has been certified by the D.G. Systems vide advisory dated 27.07.2023 to be 27.07.2023 itself, therefore, the respondents cannot claim interest and will have to refund any interest which has been taken by them for the transaction in question, particularly, when the petitioner made the necessary payments in pursuance of the bill of entry having been returned, though the payment itself may have a third party failure, which cannot be attributed to the present petitioner. The certification by the D.G. Systems of the technical difficulties in existence making the system having inability at the Common Portal upto 27.07.2023 clinches the issue of refund in accordance with Section 27 of the Act of 1962 read with the Circular dated 17.04.2023. 19. The certification by the D.G. Systems of the technical difficulties in existence making the system having inability at the Common Portal upto 27.07.2023 clinches the issue of refund in accordance with Section 27 of the Act of 1962 read with the Circular dated 17.04.2023. 19. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vishnu Aroma Pouching Pvt. Ltd. (supra) establishes broad parameters for technical failure and holds that no interest is demandable from the persons for delay in crediting to the government account, particularly, when the delay is due to technical glitches. 20. This Court is firmly of the opinion that the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 suffers from inconsistency with conjoint reading of Section 47 and Section 27 of the Act of 1962, order dated 17.04.2023, the advisory issued on 27.07.2023 and the effort of the petitioner to make the necessary payments to the Banks successfully on 20.04.2023 vide Annexure-8. 21. In light of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed, and while quashing and setting the impugned order dated 21.11.2023, the respondents are directed to refund the amount in question pertaining to the interest of the said period to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Stay petition stands disposed of.