9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined during the period from April, 1995 to September 1999, calculated at the rate of 15% p.a. prescribed under the notification and further interest on Rs. 25,52,795/- at the rate of 10% p.a. for the period from October, 1999 to the date of actual refund to the petitioner. 3.The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner had earlier filed a Special Civil Application No. 3685 of 1987 before this Court seeking various reliefs therein. The basic issue involved in the said petition was in respect of the assessable value of the vessel, namely, M.S. Satya Kailash imported by the petitioner. It was claimed by the petitioner that upon correct assessable value, the customs duty payable would come to Rs. 1,34,84,156/- wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-appeal dated 26-6-90 remanded the matter to the Original Authority with directions to decide the case within six weeks. The Assistant Collector vide his OIO dated 27-11-90 rejected the contention of the petitioner for giving benefit of depreciation of 30% of LDT and confirmed the assessment made by the Superintendent. The petitioner again approached the Commissioner (Appeals) against the said OIO and he, vide his Order-in-Appeal, dated 29-7-92 rejected the appeal and directed the petitioner to pay the differential amount of duty of Rs. 57,78,930/- which was already deposited with this Court by the petitioner. Thereafter the said amount was transferred to the Department as per this Court's order passed in Civil Application moved by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the petitioner before CEGAT against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 29-7-1992, was decided on 4-3-1997 and after considering the age of the ship, circumstances and in absence of other reliable data, the CEGAT had held that the weight recorded in the LDT less 20% should be accepted as the weight of the ship on the date of clearance and adopting this formula the weight would be 11077 MTS and it had, therefore, directed that the duty amount should be worked out afresh. Pursuant to this order of CEGAT, the petitioner, vide its letter dated 25-3-1997, requested the respondent no. 3 to adjudicate the matter. The petitioner was, however, asked to file Refund application and accordingly, the same was filed by the petitioner on 9-4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l deposit of Rs. 57,78,930/-. In other words, the accrued interest on sum of Rs. 19,25,655/- is not payable to the applicant, but to the department. I.A. is disposed of." 11.Our attention is further drawn to the fact that the Commissioner (Appeals) decided the petitioner's appeal filed against rejection of its Refund claim and while allowing the said appeal vide his order dated 24-3-1999 held that since the petitioner had paid the duty as deposit during the pendency of the appeal, at one stage or the other and the refund had arisen out of the appellate order, the limitation clause would not be applicable as per the decisions of the Tribunal. 12.On receipt of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), the petitioner wrote a letter dated 2-3- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... final hearing. 15.On notice being issued by this Court, the respondents appeared through Shri D.N. Patel, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel and affidavit in reply was also filed. The main contention urged in the affidavit in reply was that since the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing appeal before CEGAT and since it is already availed of by the petitioner, this Court should direct the CEGAT to dispose of the said appeal within a specified time-limit. 16.We have heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and considered the submissions made and contentions urged by them. We have also gone through the petition, affidavit in reply and rejoinder affidavit as well as the orders and documents attached therewith. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has specifically held that the petitioner would be entitled to refund of interest to the extent as accrued on Rs. 38,53,275/- out of the total deposit of Rs. 57,78,930/-. It is nowhere made clear as to whether the amount of interest retained with this Court pursuant to the order dated 16-12-1994 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was paid to the petitioner as well as customs department in their respective proportion. It is, however, found on inquiry that the amount of that interest is already received by the petitioner and hence no order is required to be passed with regard to the said interest attributable to the duty amount of Rs. 38,53,275/- lying with this Court up to February, 1995. This duty amount was transferred to the customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
