9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1944. The appellants on 18-11-98 once again lodged the refund claim. After substantial correspondence and agitation finally on 23-4-99 the claim was sanctioned and the cheque was issued on 24-5-99. The appellants then requested for interest at 15% per annum on the belated refund quantifying the amount at Rs. 2,41,028/-. The Asstt. Commissioner dismissed this application. The dismissal was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the issue was not covered under the provisions of Sec. 11BB of the Act. Against this order of the Commissioner, the assessees have filed Appeal No. E/404/2000/Mum. which was posted for disposal out of turn. E/1090-R/98-Mum. 2. In this case, in terms of the interim order of the CEGAT, the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on 15-2-99 as precondition to hearing of their appeal. The appeal was allowed vide Order No. C-II/1846-1847/99-WZB, dated 2-8-99 [2000 (118) E.L.T. 139 (Tri.)]. The assessee requested for refund of the amount pre-deposited on 15-2-99. The refund was sanctioned on 26-5-2000. The assessee demanded interest at the belated refund. The jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner rejected this claim stating that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d set aside the orders of confiscation of certain cargo. The goods in the meanwhile had been disposed of. Certain compensation was paid. The Tribunal enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the assessee appellants. The powers of the CEGAT came up for examination before the Orissa High Court in the case of C.C. Ex. Cus. v. Golden Hind Shipping (India) Pvt. Ltd. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 739 (Ori). The High Court examined whether the power to make such an order arose from the provisions of Sec. 129B(1) of the Customs Act which reads as under :- 129B. Orders of Appellate Tribunal (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passes such decision or order with such direction as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit, for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. The Hon ble High Court compared these powers with those vested in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Sec. 254 (1) which reads as under :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same as is involved in the present proceedings viz. power of the Tribunal to grant interest. The High Court observed that the power to grant such interest vested in the High Court on equitable grounds. In examining the power of the Tribunal, the High Court in paragraph 9 of their judgment observed as under :- The Act and the Rules made thereunder do not provide for payment of interest in case of refund of duty. We must presume that Parliament advisedly did not provide for the same, while enacting Section 11B in 1978. The fact that Section 243 and 244 of the Income-tax Act provide for payment of interest by the Government on tax refunded shows that where the Parliament wanted to provide for such interest, it did provide therefor expressly. The omission to provide for interest under this Act must, therefore, be held to be deliberate. This legislative intention, in our opinion, is equally relevant in examining whether interest should be awarded on general principles of equity - of which more later. The authorities under the Act - it goes without saying - have to operate within the four corners of the Act and the Rules made thereunder (Of course, if any other enactment or Rule is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or in relation to its orders or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice. 13. Rule 40 would seem to subordinate the Revenue authorities to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the extent they are concerned with a particular appeal before the CEGAT. Rule 41 enables and requires the Tribunal to make such orders which are necessary or expedient to give effect to their orders made. Thus the shortfall arising out of the language of the Sec. 129B(l) of the Customs Act or Section 35 of the Central Excise Act would seem to have been bridged to an extent by this provisions in subordinate legislation. The authority for making this regulation rests in CEGAT itself in terms of the enabling provision in the 3 parent Acts viz. Customs Act, 1962, Central Excise Act, 1944 and the erstwhile Gold (Control) Act, 1968. We have referred to the Judgment in the case of Golden Hind Shipping where the High Court have held that Section 129B did not confer any inherent power upon the Tribunal. Therefore, such power cannot be derived from an offspring of that Section. 14. We have gone a little beyond the powers vested in CEGAT under the Customs Act and other allied Acts to assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
