9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (3) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conferred for the first time by the said provision. Act 22 of 1995 also inserted Section 28AA which provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of duty by a person who is liable to pay the duty. Thus at relevant time there was no statutory right entitling the respondents to payment of interest on delayed refund and the writ petition filed by them was not for the enforcement of a legal right available to them under any statute. The claim for interest was in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention by the appellants of money that was collected from the respondents by way of customs duty, redemption fine and penalty. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Suganmal (1964 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME Court) a writ petition seekin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the invoices. The Collector of Customs passed an order for confiscation of the goods but permitted the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also imposed. On the basis of the higher price of goods, as assessed, the respondents were also required to pay the difference in customs duty to the extent of Rs. 34,464.23. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order of the Collector of Customs before the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as `the Board'). The said appeal was dismissed by the Board. Thereafter the assessee filed a revision petition before the Central Government which was transferred to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st @ 12% per annum to the respondents on the sum of Rs. 10,35,000/- from the date of the filing of the revision application before the Central Government till the date of payment. 3.Shri R. Mohan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that the High Court was in error in entertaining the writ petition and giving directions regarding payment of interest on the amount that was collected from Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the order of Collector of Customs and which was subsequently refunded to them in pursuance of the judgment of the Tribunal. The submission is that under the provisions of the Act, as they stood at the relevant time there was no provision for payment of interest on the amount collected on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tled to payment of interest on the said amount for the period the respondents were deprived of the said amount and that the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and directing payment of interest. The learned Counsel has placed before us the judgments of the various High Courts in which directions have been given for payment of interest while directing refund of tax illegally collected from the assessee. 6.In Suganmal (supra) this Court has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Act by Act 22 of 1995 there was no right entitling payment of interest on delayed refund under the Act. Such a right was conferred for the first time by the said provision. Act 22 of 1995 also inserted Section 28AA which provides for payment of interest on delayed payment of duty by a person who is liable to pay the duty. Thus at relevant time there was no statutory right entitling the respondents to payment of interest on delayed refund and the writ petition filed by them was not for the enforcement of a legal right available to them under any statute. The claim for interest was in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention by the appellants of money that was collected from the respondents by way of customs duty, redemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e option to the respondent to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,09,60,000/-. The respondent deposited the said redemption fine and obtained the delivery of goods. The appeal filed by the respondent-company against the said order of the Collector was allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated February 14, 1990. Special Leave Petition Nos. 14605 and 14606/90 filed by the Revenue against the said judgment of the Tribunal were dismissed by this Court by Order dated November 19, 1990. The amount of Rs. 1,09,60,000/- which was deposited by the respondent-company was refunded to them in two instalments on January 29, 1991 and March 6, 1991. Thereafter on May 31, 1991, the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal was fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
