9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 828X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Banerjee, for the Petitioner. Shri Ali, for the Respondent. ORDER In this writ application the petitioner has inter alia challenged a notice being F.No. S 107-59/2006 ARS dated 24th November 2008 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising Refund Section (Port), Kolkata inter alia alleging that interest of Rs. 18,42,867/- on delayed refund of dumping duty had erroneously been paid in respect of the consignments specified in the said order, the admissible interest being Rs. 1,71,124/- and calling upon the petitioner to refund the excess refund amount within the time stipulated in the said order. 2. The petitioner imported consignments of Styrene Butadin Co-polymer Resins (KHS-68) from Korean manufacturers. Disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that a writ application being W. P. No. 2772 of 2001 was moved by the petitioner on 31st May 2001 (in Vacation Bench), challenging the imposition of dumping duty on the goods imported by the petitioner. 8. His Lordship the Hon ble Justice Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, upon hearing the learned lawyers appearing for the respective parties, passed an interim order directing the petitioner to deposit the full amount of anti-dumping duty with the learned Advocate-on-Record of the Union of India. The dumping duty so paid, was directed to be kept in a separate account. 9. The writ application was ultimately dismissed by a judgment and order dated 29th January 2002 of His Lordship the Hon ble Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose [2002 (142) E.L.T. 549 (Cal.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prevailing rate of interest charged by banks, in the event the writ application succeeded. 15. After the judgment and order dated 21st August 2006 of the Division Bench, the petitioner applied for refund of the anti-dumping duty deposited under protest, along with interest thereon. 16. No action was taken whereupon the writ petitioners moved a contempt application. In course of hearing of the contempt application on 5th April 2007 the respondents produced an order being Memo No. 5-107-59/2006 ARS dated 2nd April 2007 whereby the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appraising Refund Section) had allowed the application of the petitioner for refund in compliance of the judgment and order of the Division Bench passed on 21st August 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the date of making of the application for refund of duty. 22. However, as argued by Mr. Banerjee, interest was payable to the petitioner in terms of the order of the Division Bench. The Division Bench directed payment of interest at the same rate as paid by banks. The assessing authority had thus rightly granted 9% interest. 23. In any event the appeal and the revisional application of the Department have been rejected. Even though the Department has appealed to the Tribunal there is no order of stay. The respondent-authorities cannot indefinitely withhold interest, merely by filing an appeal, and more so when there is no interim stay. The respondent-authorities are bound to pay interest in terms of the order dated 11th July, 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
