2019 (10) TMI 65 - HC - Customs

Imposition of Interest - Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission to consider the claim of the petitioner for waiver of interest - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of REXNORD ELECTRONICS AND CONTROLS LTD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 2008 (3) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT where Settlement Commission, has taken note of the provisions of Section 127 H and has exercised discretion concluding that interest upto 90% would be liable to be waived. It is deemed fit to remit the matter back to the file of the Settlement Commission to be decided afresh in accordance with law and in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rexnord Electronics - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission on imposition of interest.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested an order of the Settlement Commission specifically regarding the imposition of interest. The duty liability was acknowledged and settled by the petitioner as demanded in the show cause notice. However, the dispute arose concerning the payment of interest. The revenue argued for interest payment based on the contract terms at 15%, while the Settlement Commission granted partial immunity from interest exceeding 10% per annum, considering changes in Foreign Trade Policy and Section 127 H of the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner relied on previous court decisions, highlighting the issue of jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to consider waiver of interest. The matter was remanded by the Bench to the Settlement Commission for further review, following precedents set in similar cases.

The Revenue's counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment affirming the decision of the Calcutta High Court, emphasizing that the Settlement Commission could not waive interest under certain circumstances. This legal position was further supported by another case where the Supreme Court clarified the distinction between interest payable under the Customs Act and under a bond executed as per a specific scheme.

The High Court, in its analysis, noted the lack of reasoning in the Settlement Commission's decision regarding the waiver of interest up to 90%. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Commission for a fresh decision in line with the law and the Supreme Court's judgment. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Commission for further proceedings and orders were to be passed within a specified timeline.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed as a result of the judgment.