9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (T)]. - A common issue is involved in all the stay applications and these are therefore taken up together for disposal. 2. The Ld. Lower Authority has held that the demand raised is barred by limitation. Ld. D.R. on behalf of the Revenue has pleaded that the demand has been raised for the reason that the appellants had not paid the interest in terms of Section 47 read with Section 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has pleaded interest in respect of the goods which have been assessed from the Warehousing is required to be paid. He has pleaded no doubt in terms of Section 47 read with Section 61(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 no period of limitation has been provided for recovery of the interest for the period after seven days of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods. In the present case he pleaded that the goods had been cleared and the interest calculated based on the understanding of the law by the authorities was also paid. Subse- quently it was felt that the appellants were required to pay further interest for the period beyond seven days after the assessment of the Bill of Entry and therefore there was a demand for balance interest amount due. He fairly conceded that this demand was raised after two years beyond the period of six months after the clearance of the goods. He has pleaded that inasmuch as under Sec. 61(3) no period of limitation has been prescribed for recovery of interest the department is entitled to claim the interest due in terms of the general period of limitation pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 61(3), the general period, of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act should be made applicable. We are unable to accept this plea of the Ld. D.R. in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.O.I. v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 has held is reproduced below : "Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule 12 is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery of duty. He urged that in the absence of any prescribed period for recovery of the duty as contemplated by Rule 12, the officer may act arbitrarily in recovering the amount after lapse of long period of time. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rve as pointed out before us that the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act so far as the recovery of duty etc. is concerned is similar to that under the Customs Act, 1962. Here also we observe under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 period of limitation prescribed for recovery of duty is six months or five years as above and also the period for claim of refund is also six months. The position being similar we hold that the same logic should apply in respect of the recovery to be made under the Customs Act where no period of limitation has been prescribed. We therefore hold that the Ld. Lower Authority is right in holding that the demand for interest beyond the period of six months from clearance of goods is barred by limitation and we t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
