1996 (4) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Demand/Recovery of interest - time limitation - Held that - even when no time limit is prescribed for demand/recovery of interest under the Customs Act, 1962, time limit of six months or five years as the case may be, as provided under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is applicable to such cases.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand for interest under Sections 47 and 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 is barred by limitation.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved a common issue concerning the limitation period for the demand of interest under Sections 47 and 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the demand for interest was justified as the appellants had not paid interest in accordance with the Act. The Revenue argued that although no specific limitation period was provided under Section 61(3), the general period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act should apply. On the other hand, the Respondents, represented by consultants, asserted that the interest had been paid as per earlier demands and bonds executed for warehousing of goods. They argued that the interest was recoverable from importers under Sections 47 and 61, and that the demand for interest beyond the permissible period was time-barred.

The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and referred to previous decisions to analyze the issue. It noted that no specific limitation period was prescribed under Section 61(3) of the Customs Act. Citing the case of Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, the Tribunal held that a reasonable period of limitation must be read into the section. Drawing parallels with similar provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act, the Tribunal concluded that a reasonable limitation period of six months or five years, depending on the circumstances, should apply where no specific period is prescribed. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument that the general period of limitation under the Limitation Act should be applicable, emphasizing the need for a reasonable time frame for the exercise of powers under the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision that the demand for interest beyond six months from the clearance of goods was barred by limitation. It found that the demand for interest had been raised significantly after the permissible period, leading to the dismissal of the appeals from the Revenue. The Tribunal clarified that the relevant date for the demand of duty would be the date of clearance from the warehouse, as interest is payable until that point under Rule 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision highlighted the importance of applying a reasonable limitation period in the absence of specific provisions under the Act.