9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 61 of Customs Act was amended and the period of warehousing was reduced to one year and the interest payable was fixed to @ 12%. The warehoused goods were cleared on 10-9-98. The appellants paid interest for the period from 1-11-1983 to 9-9-1988 as demanded by the Department. The department held that the warehousing period is only one year. However the appellants took the issue to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the High Court decided that the warehousing period applicable in this case would be only one year as the goods were warehoused before Section 61 was amended. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, it appeared that the appellants paid an amount of Rs. 31,395/- in excess. The department moved the Hon'ble S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricted only up to 31-5-96. In other words, no interest @ 12% has been paid from 1-6-96. The above decision of the Original Authority has been upheld in the impugned order dated 31-1-2001. The appellants have strongly challenged the findings of the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority. According to the appellants, they are entitled to interest for the period from 1-6-96 to 17-8-98. (date of refund of excess amount of interest paid). 3. Shri M.G. Varadarajan, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocate urged the following points :- (i) Even at the time of the claim of refund, initially it was contended that the capital goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants along with 12% interest in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in favour of the appellants. The only point to be seen is a question of fact. The Original Authority has stated in the first order that the appellants had not produced any evidence to show that there was no unjust enrichment. These statements appears to be incorrect. Even after the personal hearing on 10-10-96, the appellants have given a letter dated 10-10-96 along with the relevant Balance Sheet. This letter has been received by the Adjudicating authority as seen from the office seal on 10-10-98. We are giving an extract from the letter as follows :- "2 Balance Sheet of M/s. Bhoruka Steel Ltd. for the year 1991-92. We would like to draw your kind att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
