9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner (Appeals)’s order sanctioning the interest on the seized currency for the delay in its return is not correct - It is only the High Court, which in exercise of their writ jurisdiction can order the payment of interest by the Department for period of delay in return of the currency - order ordering payment of interest is stayed and the Revenue’s stay application is allowed. - C/557-559/2010 - 473/2011-SM(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 22-7-2011 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anil Khanna, DR, for the Appellant. Shri C.M. Sharma, Consultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)] - The facts leading to this stay application and appeals are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 On 18-12-93, Indian curren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective dated 8-5-2008 need not to be interferred. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal vide Final Order dated 21-5-2009 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 362 (Tri.-Del.)] directed for refund of the currency to the appellant i.e. Mrs. Shashi Goyal, from whose possession it was seized and on the question of interest, the Tribunal directed the Original Adjudicating Authority to decide the same. In pursuance to the Tribunal s Order dated 21-5-2009, the currency was finally returned to Mrs. Shashi Goyal on 5-4-2010. Subsequently, on the issue of interest, the jurisdictional Dy. Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 6-4-2010 held that the Respondent is not entitled to interest. However, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed under Section 27 has been delayed beyond period of three months from the date of filing of the refund claim, that the provisions of Section 27A cannot be applied to return of the seized currency, which has been ordered to be released and that in view of this, the impugned order is incorrect, He, therefore, prayed for stay of the operation of the impugned order. 4. Shri C.M. Sharma, Consultant, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that while the currency had been ordered to be released by the Tribunal as early as in 2000, the same was released on 5-4-2010 in pursuance of second order dated 21-5-2009 of the Tribunal in this matter, that the respondent is, therefore, eligible for interest on the seized currency for the period of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is ordered to be released by Appellate Authority/Court and that decision has not been challenged by the Department and the same has not been stayed or reversed by higher appellate authority, the same has to be returned to the person from whom the same had been seized and there would be no question of payment of interest on the value of such seized goods. It is settled law that the Tribunal, which is a creature of the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944, has to function within the four walls of these Acts and cannot do anything beyond the provisions these Acts. Therefore, though there is absolutely no justification for more than 10 year s delay in returning the seized currency and the conduct of the officers amounts to defying t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
