9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs at the rate of 18 per cent. per annum. (ii) This ld. Authority may kindly grant such other reliefs as this ld. Authority deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favour of the appellant." 2. Shri G.L. Rawal, the learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He has reiterated the contentions made in the miscellaneous application and stated that the Redemption Fine Penalty were paid almost nine years back and the refund was received by the applicant after two years and one month from the date of the passing of the order by the Tribunal. Shri Rawal has pleaded that the applicant is entitled to interest at the rate of 18% per annum and states that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme Court in the case of Income-tax Officer, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi reported in AIR 1969 SC 432 wherein it was held that the Tribunal has got inherent powers to grant stay. He has pleaded for the grant of costs. 3. Shri A.S.R. Nair, the learned senior departmental representative who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, states that Customs Act, 1962 is a complete code and there is no provision for the payment of interest under the Customs Act, 1962. In support of his argument he has relied on a judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sudhir Chimanlal v. Union of India reported in 1988 (36) E.L.T. 406 (Bom.) where the Bombay High Court had held that: It is well settled that interest is not to be permitted me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a statute or customs or agreement to sanction the grant of the same. Here, nothing of that nature can be said to exist. Dr. Kantawala pleads that the relief to be granted, require respondents to deposit the amount of refund in court, as otherwise suitors succeeding against the customs, find it virtually impossible to get relief. There may be some substance in this grievance of the petitioner. Nonetheless, there are measures available to suitors to execute orders passed in their favour. Therefore, no special directions, as solicited by the petitioner, are called for. Hence the order. Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jalandhar reported in 1988 (37) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 (S.C.) = (1985 E.C.R. 289) but it was assailed before this court. The appeal was withdrawn. This court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. See the observations of this court in Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) = (1985 E.C.R. 289)." Since there is no provision under the Customs Act for the grant of interest on the delayed payment of the refund, we reject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
