9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 876X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the orders passed by the CESTAT. The same is unacceptable - in the facts of the present case, the respondents were not justified in withholding the said payments. In view of the deliberate withholding of the payments, not only the amount is to be returned to the petitioner but they should also be liable to pay interest on the same. Entitlement for Interest - HELD THAT:- Section 27-A of the Customs Act deals with refund of any claim which is liable to attract interest at the minimum of 5% and the maximum of 30%. The Parliament has enacted this law to ensure that the refunds should carry interest. It would imply that any money belonging to the petitioner, which is with the possession of the respondents, requires to be returned along wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Considering the same, the final order was passed on 30.4.2011 directing confiscation of goods. Since the goods were already released provisionally on execution of bond along with a Bank Guarantee, a redemption fine of Rs.20 Lakhs was imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. A penalty of Rs.10 Lakhs was imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.30 Lakhs was recovered by the respondents by invoking the Bank Guarantee. The said order was assailed before the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) at New Delhi in Case No.C/S/53196/2016-CU (DB). By the order dated 24.8.2016, the appeal was allowed and the order dated 30.4.2011, namely, the final order was set aside. Consequently, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction (2). Since in the present case the order in original was set aside by the CESTAT, the petitioner's claim for refund cannot be considered. Various grounds have been raised by the respondents on merits as to deny the claim of the petitioner. Hence, it is pleaded that the petition be dismissed. Heard learned counsels. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any refund since the same is hit by the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 27 of the Customs Act. We are unable to accept such a submission. The question of refund of tax is not the subject matter of these proceedings. In terms of the order of the CESTAT, the respondents were duty bound to return the amount of Rs.30 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o question the entitlement of the petitioner, does not lie with the respondents. In case the submissions of the respondents were to be accepted, the same would result in overriding the orders passed by the CESTAT. The same is unacceptable. We are constrained to observe that in the facts of the present case, the respondents were not justified in withholding the said payments. In view of the deliberate withholding of the payments, we are of the considered view that not only the amount is to be returned to the petitioner but they should also be liable to pay interest on the same. Section 27-A of the Customs Act deals with refund of any claim which is liable to attract interest at the minimum of 5% and the maximum of 30%. We are of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
