9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt withheld by the appellants without the authority of law. The writ petition was filed only for recovery of interest on the said amount of Rs. 77,52,145.72. 2. The respondents during the period commencing from 15th October, 1979 to 7th May, 1980 imported 764 MTs of Alloy Steel Scrap pursuant to various contracts which were entered into between the respondents and the foreign suppliers. In respect of Alloy Steel Scrap so imported the appellants filed 26 bills of entry for clearance of these goods for home consumption. According to the appellants the goods imported by them were covered by Tariff Entry No. 73.03/05 and they were liable to pay basic Customs Duty at the rate of 30% + 5% auxiliary duty and Rs. 225/- per M.T. as countervailing d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application till the date of repay ment. In appeal a Division Bench of this court granted to the present respondents interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment till the date of recovery. [Metal Distributors Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 321]. The Division Bench has ob served that the duty which was recovered was without authority of law and in the face of the conduct of the department in not refunding what was due to the importer, it cannot be appreciated why the importer should be deprived of the interest from the date of payment till the date of filing of the refund applications. The Division Bench also said that it was the discretion of the trial judge to decide as to what should be the rate of interest and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of interest will also be a matter of discretion for the court. Undoubtedly the discretion will have to be exercised looking to all the circumstances of a given case. 9. In the present case, the amount involved is a large amount of Rs. 77,52,145.72. It is an accepted position that this amount was recovered without the authority of law. The lone redeeming feature in the present case is that the appellants have granted refund on the refund applications without the respondents being required to come to Court for that purpose, as they were required to do in the case of the balance amount. As against this, the fact remains that the respondents were deprived of the use of this amount for a period of 1/2 years. In the case of the balance amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest can be made. In the present case, interest is claimed to put a party whose money is retained without the authority of law, in the same position he would have occupied, had his money not been so retained. A court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 would, in a given case, be entitled to award interest if this is necessary in order to bring about an equitable result. 12. In the present case, however, as we have set out earlier, the appellants themselves granted refund of the amount in question. In our view, a reasonable time should be allowed in such circumstances to the appellants to examine the claim and decide whether refund should be granted to the respondents or not. In our view four months' time would be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
