TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13th April 2018) shall be returned to petitioner within four weeks from the date this order is uploaded. The petitioner should also be paid interest on the amount refunded at 9% p.a. from the date the amount was paid until the amount is refunded. Respondent No.2 also consider if any action is required to be taken against Respondent No.3 in view of the Public Notice No.26/2010. Petition disposed off. - WRIT PETITION NO. 9405 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 22-8-2022 - K.R. SHRIRAM GAURI GODSE, JJ. Ms. Kiran Doiphode for Petitioner. Ms. Ruju Thakkar a/w Ms. Neeta Masurkar for Respondent No.2. Mr. Kazan Shroff a/w Mr. Vikash Kumar i/b Let Legal Partners for Respondent No.3. Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for State. Mr. Mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Impugning this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) petitioner preferred an appeal before The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). By an order dated 20th February 2017 CESTAT set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal filed by petitioner. 3. Soon thereafter, petitioner by letter dated 28th March 2017 requested Respondent No.2 to issue a certificate of waiver of detention and demurrage charges since the said consignment was lying detained in the area of Respondent No.3 for no fault of petitioner. This was followed by communication dated 15th July 2016 to Respondent No.3 reminding Respondent No.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent No.2 nor Respondent No.3 have filed any affidavit in reply. The main contesting respondent in our view would have been Respondent No.3 who despite being given sufficient opportunity have chosen not to file affidavit in reply. We have to note that on earlier occasion cost of Rs.25,000/- was also imposed on Respondent No.3. Though Respondent No.3 has paid the cost still no affidavit is filed. Mr. Shroff sought further time to file reply which the court was not inclined to grant unless further cost of Rs.25,000/- was paid for the adjournment. Mr. Shroff then stated he was ready to argue the matter for Respondent No.3 without filing any reply. 8. Mr. Shroff submitted that if petitioner submitted the certificate from Respondent No.2 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate of waiver of demurrage and detention charges for the period 5th November 2015 to 29th August 2018. Petitioner by letter dated 4 th September 2018 accordingly made a request to Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) in response to which Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) HQIU/R I, Mumbai issued certificate dated 11th September 2018. Ms. Doiphode submitted petitioner had no control over it and Respondent No.3 instead of taking such a bureaucratic obstinate stand should have accepted and acted on the said certificate because the said certificate dated 11th September 2018 was addressed to Respondent No.3 [The Shed Manager (Import)] and it also provides for waiver of demurrage and detention charges from 5th November 2015 to 29t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 076, suitable action is taken against the delinquent officers. 13. In view of the above, we hereby direct Respondent No.3 to consider the certificate dated 11th September 2018 (Exhibit H to the petition) as the proper waiver certificate issued by Respondent No.2. As undertaken by Mr. Shroff, the excess amount which petitioner says is Rs.19,02,455/- recovered from petitioner (for the period 5th November 2015 to 29th August 2018 less for the period 10th February 2016 to 13th April 2018) shall be returned to petitioner within four weeks from the date this order is uploaded. In our view, petitioner should also be paid interest on the amount refunded at 9% p.a. from the date the amount was paid until the amount is refunded. 14. Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|