9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and in line with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rexnord Electronics - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.No.6564 of 2007 And M.P.No.1 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 12-9-2019 - Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.B.Satish Sundar For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel ORDER The petitioner challenges an order of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission dated 31.07.2006 on the limited question of imposition of interest. 2.Heard Mr.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3.There is no dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods v. Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission and others ( W.P.No.19197 of 2006 dated 11.10.2006). 7.Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue for his part points out that the law on this issue has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Rexnord Electronics and Controls Limited v. Union of India (224 ELT 184) , wherein the Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Port) (supra) . Thus according to him, the decisions relied on by the petitioner carry no force as on date. 8. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Rexnord Electronics (supra) has been applied by a learned single Judge of the Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is payable under the Customs Act alone could be waived by the Settlement Commission under Section 127-H of the Act. But, by the exporter, it was contended that the Settlement Commission had power to waive the interest payable both under the Customs Act or under the Scheme. But, the Hon'ble Supreme Court negatived the claim of the exporter. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there was a vast difference between the interest payable under the Customs Act and the interest payable in terms of a bond executed as per the Scheme floated under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the Settlement Commission had power to waive th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... As the Settlement Commission, did not have any jurisdiction to waive the amount of interest payable under the bond, we do not see that any jurisdictional error has been committed by it in directing the payment of the said amount which is otherwise payable. In any event the appellant is not prejudiced thereby as irrespective of such direction, the appellant was bound to pay the interest payable under the bond. 9.The Settlement Commission, in this case has taken note of the provisions of Section 127 H as well as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Port (supra) and has exercised discretion concluding that interest upto 90% would be liable to be waived. The point for consideration is wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
