9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e parameters of the first proviso to Section 61(2), we do not know which other case would fall. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned demand is set aside. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to refund of the amounts already paid by them - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - Writ Petition No. 23412 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 13-10-2016 - V. Ramasubramanian And Anis, JJ. ORDER ( Per VRS, J ) Aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to grant a waiver of interest, in terms of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, the assessee is before us. 2. Heard Mr. G. Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned senior standing counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows: Provided that the Board may, if it considers it necessary so to do in the public interest, by order and under circumstances of an exceptional nature to be specified in such order, waive the whole or part of any interest payable under this Section in respect of any warehoused goods . 8. What are circumstances of exceptional nature are not indicated in the Act. We do not know whether there are any Board Circulars laying down the guidelines as to how the discretion conferred by the first proviso to Section 61(2) has to be exercised. Therefore, on first principles, it will be clear that such discretion may have to be exercised, in an objective manner. With this first principles in mind, if we have a look at the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 2,01,20,194/- involved. Recovery of balance interest amount of ₹ 3,41,768/- (Total interest ₹ 57,25,626/- (-) paid ₹ 53,83,858/-) and penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- also imposed. 14.08.1998 Being aggrieved, Essar filed appeal before Commr.(A), Hyderabad. Vide OIA No.06/98(V)CUS dated 14.08.1998 Commr.(A) set aside the order passed by AC, VSP and remanded back for de novo proceedings. Penalty of ₹ 20 lakhs set aside. 15.10.1998 Vide OIO No.73/98 dt.15.10.1998 Asst.Commr., VSP ordered Essar to clear the goods on payment of duty of ₹ 2,26,42,882/- along with interest of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.001. 27.01.2003 Essar filed a representation before CBEC seeking waiver of interest payable. 04.03.2003 AC issued a letter directing the Superintendent to detain the finished goods to the worth of ₹ 1.32 crores. 17.03.2003 DC vide demand notice dated 17.03.2003 for recovery of dues. 20.03.2003 Writ Petition No.4757/2003 dt.20.03.2003 filed before Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which was admitted by Hon ble High Court. 01.01.2004 CBEC informed Essar to approach the Commissioner of Customs after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.11.1999. The amount realized through the sale of the imported goods in the public auction was ₹ 1,53,82,862/-. Thereafter, the petitioner has paid the differential duty of ₹ 22,37,699/- (Rs.1,77,55,557/- minus ₹ 1,53,82,862/-). It is this aspect, which made the case of the petitioner one of exceptional nature, but to this aspect, the respondents have not applied their mind at all. 11. As a matter of fact, if the goods had not been auctioned, the petitioner would have had the benefit of the goods and the amount already paid by them would come to nearly 50% of the duty demanded. By making payment of the remaining amount, they could have retained the goods. Today, the payments made by them to the tune of about ₹ 75 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
