9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im, Government notes that Section 27A of Customs Act grants interest on delayed refund of duty. In this case amount of sale proceeds are refunded and therefore provisions of Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted. Government also notes that excess warehouse charges of ₹ 18,880/- are already ordered to be refunded - Government do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and therefore upholds the same - Decided against assessee. - F. No. 373/19/B/2013-RA - Order No. 24/2014-Cus, - Dated:- 29-1-2014 - Shri D.P. Singh, Joint Secretary S. Palanikumar, Advocate, for the Assessee. None, for the Department. ORDER This revision application is filed by applicant Shri Ashraf Puliyalla Parambil, c/o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTAT. CESTAT vide its final order No. 569-571/2009, dated 19-5-2009 reduced the fine to ₹ 5,00,000/- from ₹ 15,00,000/- and the penalty to ₹ 1,00,000/- from ₹ 2,50,000/-. Since the confiscated gold was disposed of by the department on 4-1-2006 and 30-3-2005 and realised the amount of ₹ 25,98,108/- applicant Shri Ashraf Puliyalla Parambil filed a claim for refund of ₹ 11,50,000/- with interest on 3-11-2009. 3. Being aggrieved by the said Order-in-Original applicant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed refund of warehouse charge of ₹ 18,880/- charged for the period of 30-3-2006 to 30-9-2010 and upheld the remaining part of impugned Order-in-Original. 4. Being aggrieved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ease the gold on payment of redemption fine sum of ₹ 15,00,000/- and also imposed the personal penalty sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further the CESTAT modified order to reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 5,00,000/- from ₹ 15,00,000/- and also reduce the personal penalty to ₹ 1,00,000/- from ₹ 2,50,000/- by its order dated 19-5-2009 in final order Nos. 569-571 since the CESTAT has passed an order to redeem the goods on 27-3-2007, the adjudicating authority should have calculated the interest amount from the date of CESTAT order but failed to do so. 4.5 The applicant made a refund application on 30-10-2009 but refund sanctioned on 10.2011 (sic) after lapse of 2 years and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rehman. (ii) 2011 (263) E.L.T. 685 (Tri.-Mum.) - Yakub Ibrahim Yusuf v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 5. Personal hearing was scheduled in this case on 25-6-2013, 24-7-2013, 31-10-2013 and 16-12-2013. Nobody appeared for personal hearing. 6. Government has carefully gone through the relevant case records and perused the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. 7. On perusal of records, Government observes that the applicant had attempted to smuggle gold bars and coins weighing to 3402.5 gms valued at ₹ 14,15,440/- concealed in Eveready brand 1.5 volt batteries. The adjudicating authority had confiscated the said gold absolutely and imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,50,000/- on the applicant. The applicant pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the interest of 9% per annum for the sale proceeds be paid for delayed payment and warehousing charges may be re-fixed. The applicant has cited the following case laws for his defence : (i) 2009 (235) E.L.T. 402 (Bom.) - Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman. (ii) 2011 (263) E.L.T. 685 (Tri.-Mum.) - Yakub Ibrahim Yusuf v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 9. On perusal of records Government notes that all the issues raised in this revision application have also been raised before Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in his finding portion of Order-in-Appeal 1325/2012, dated 22-11-2012 has observed as under : I have carefully gone through the records of the case, the grounds of appeals and the cited case laws and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no reason why the exchequer should not retain the duty portion. I find that the above referred judgment squarely applicable in the present case. I therefore do not find any merit in the applicant s claim for refund of the duty portion and accordingly reject the same. 9.1 Government notes that in view of above said judgment in the case of CC, Trichy v. K. Balaganesan, applicant s refund claim for duty portion is rightly rejected by appellate Commissioner. As regards interest claim, Government notes that Section 27A of Customs Act grants interest on delayed refund of duty. In this case amount of sale proceeds are refunded and therefore provisions of Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted. Government also notes that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
