1996 (8) TMI 124 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of duty, fine, and penalty wrongfully collected from the petitioner.
2. Appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Claim for refund of additional customs duty, fine, and penalty.
4. Entitlement to statutory interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner sought a direction for the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,64,963.33p. with interest, contending that duty, fine, and penalty were wrongfully collected. The Collector had determined the value of goods differently from the declared value, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalty. The petitioner appealed to the Customs Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), which allowed the appeal, setting aside the Adjudicating Authority's order. The petitioner then applied for a refund of the amount paid, as per the CEGAT's decision.

2. The High Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, observed that the petitioner was entitled to the refund with statutory interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed an application for refund on April 6, 1992, which was not contested by the respondents. The Court held that the statements in the writ application regarding the refund application were deemed admitted and true. The Court also mentioned that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had fixed the rate of interest at 15% per annum for such cases.

3. The Court directed the Customs Authorities to calculate and pay the interest payable to the petitioner within a month, along with the principal sum. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was entitled to the refund amount with statutory interest, considering the delay in payment since April 6, 1992. The Court highlighted the fixed rate of interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act and ordered the payment to be made promptly.

4. Additionally, the Court noted that since no affidavit was filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ application were not admitted by them. The Court also rejected a prayer for a stay on the operation of the order, citing the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved in the writ application. All parties were instructed to act as per the court's order.