9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: That the premises of the appellants were searched, pursuant to the intelligence against the main noticee M/s. Real Paint, on 13.09.2011 on the allegations that the appellant is engaged in sale of goods manufactured and clandestinely cleared by said M/s. Real Paint. During said search goods worth Rs.1,01,21,609/- along with an amount of Rs. 12,53,500/- Indian currency (INR) were seized by the Anti Evasion team by seizure memo dated 05.03.2012. The sum so seized was got fixed in a deposit with Syndicate Bank on 05.03.2012 itself. The said currency along with the goods seized were proposed to be confiscated vide common show cause notice No.579 dated 13.3.2012. The said pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustries Ltd. vs. Union of India reported as [1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC)] is alleged to have been wrongly interpreted by the authority. It is submitted that present is not at all the case of unjust enrichment. The seized currency in the present case was never deemed to be the duty nor ever it has been adjudicated as being the amount for duty liability. Hence, the amount was absolutely out of scope of section 11B/11BB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Thus, the finding of Adjudicating Authority that the impugned seized currency was towards the probable Central Excise duty is alleged to be factually erroneous and unsustainable. Learned Counsel further submits that the finding by the authority that the interest earned on the fixed deposit is not lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the proposed confiscation of impugned seized cash and even of the goods seized along therewith, imposition of redemption fine and penalty has been set aside by Commissioner (Appeals). Apparently and admittedly, pursuant to said order that the refund application claiming the refund of the amount of Rs.12,53,500/- along with the interest earned thereupon was filed by the appellant on 20.1.2022. The refund of the principal amount was ordered even by Original Adjudicating Authority. The interest has been granted by the Departmental Appellate Authority, but only on the ground of delay due to sanctioning of refund beyond the period of three months in terms of section 11B/11BB of Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence the interest only from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h interest on the amount collected in excess of the duty. It provides that where an amount has been collected in excess of the duty from the buyer of such goods, the person who is liable to pay such amount shall, in addition to the amount, be liable to pay interest at such rate not below ten per cent., and not exceeding thirtysix per cent per annum, as is for the time being fixed by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette. 33. There is no provision in the Excise Act, which deals with refund of revenue deposit and so rate of interest has not been prescribed, when revenue deposit is required to be refunded." 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Raigad vs M/s. Finacord Chemicals (P) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sandvik Asia Ltd. reported as [2006 (196) ELT 257 (SC)] wherein it was held that the amount deposited under section 35FF of Central Excise Act as far as the payment of interest is concerned shall be applicable only in the cases for such deposits as have been made under section 35F of the Act. As already observed in the present case, the amount in question is neither the amount of duty nor is the amount of pre deposit, the amount in question is merely a deposit with the Revenue which the Revenue had no authority to retain as the appellant was the owner thereof. 8. As per Article 300A of Constitution of India, also no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law. Once confiscation order about impugned currency get set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the amounts has to be 12% of the amount refunded. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE Hyderabad vs. ITC Ltd. [2005 (179) ELT 15 (S.C] has also confined the interest at the rate of 12% and it was further held in that judgement by the Apex Court that any judgement or decision of any court taking contrary view will be no longer the good law. 9. In view of the entire above discussion I hereby hold that since the amount in question was not the amount of pre-deposit as required under section 35F of Central Excise Act, section 35FF has been wrongly invoked by Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while holding that since there is no provision to grant interest on the seized currency notes while refunding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
