9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven before the Show Cause Notice or confirmation of duty, pursuant to any Show Cause Notice was arrived at. The application is with a prayer, of interest on and of Rs. 10.00 crores sought from the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai, since the amounts have been wrongly kept with them and applicants deprived of the same. The interest is claimed from the date of deposit of the said amount of Rs. 10.00 crores. (b) Pursuant to a contract with ONGC dated 22-1-1999, the oil rig was imported into India for the purpose of oil exploration and it commenced operations in the designated areas in April, 2000. Customs formalities were complied by filing a Bill of Entry. The Customs Department however issued a seizure memo dated 26-9-2001 pursuant to which the said rig was seized at a location in the sea off Bombay. Vide a letter dated 17-9-2001, provisional release of the said seizure of the rig was granted subject to the importer making a cash deposit of Rs. 10.00 crores and giving a bond of Rs. 50.00 crores. The said seizure was unsuccessfully challenged in the Bombay High Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 26232 of 2001. The Hon'ble High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e claim with interest and to grant the consequential relief of refund after the Tribunal's order. (v) Letter dated 31-5-2004 reminding of the claim and stating that there is no justification in withholding the sum of Rs. 10.00 crores deposites as a security. Further stating that the refund application is pending for almost a year and that the cash security deposit along with the applicable interest accrued be returned. (vi) After the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the appeal filed by the Respondent, the applicant again wrote to the Respondent by its letter dated 21-2-2005 to refund the cash deposit if Rs. 10.00 crores along with interest accrued and to cancel the bond of Rs. 50.00 crores. A copy of the said judgment of the Supreme Court was also sent. The Respondent by his order dated 7-3-2005 stated that the request for refund of deposit of Rs. 10.00 crores will be considered after receipt of the certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court, whereas the applicant had on 21-2-2005 sent a certified copy of the order. (vii) The applicant again by letter dated 14-3-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made, an efficient administration in the Custom House's does not require the CBEC's instructions to return the cash deposits made as securities and Bond executed, when such a security and Bonds are no longer required, as the impugned orders for which securities were effected, no longer exists. Non-return of Rs. 10.00 crores is therefore unexplainable. Delay on part of the officers and their supervisors up to the level of the Chief Commissioner in-Charge of the Custom House (Administration) at Mumbai Custom House, in terms of the Board's instructions, they should be held responsible for dereliction of duty and also recovery of interest liability incurred by Revenue from the date of deposit which we would conclude to be eligible to the applicants, herein, following the decisions in the case of : (i) Kandhari Beverages Ltd v. Union of India - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 15 (P&H). In this matter, the deposit was made on 7-2-1996 whereas the interest was awarded with effect from 2-11-1999. The Hon'ble High Court in Para 13 has held that "It is clarified that since the deposit had been made on 7-2-1996, and the order passed by the Commissioner on 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 30,288.57 and Rs. 1,56,774.24 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of collection till the date of payment. Such refund shall be made within three weeks after the service of the plain copy of the operative part of this judgment." (iii) The Calcutta High Court in Dilichand Shreelal v. CCE & Ors, 1986 (26) E.L.T. 298 (Cal.) where duty was paid under mistake of law and ordered to be refunded took the same view as that of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 939. Paragraphs 51 and 52 reads as under : "51. The other contention is with regard to the payment of interest. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not liable to pay any duty on the product processed by it. Thus, the collection made by the respondents is unauthorized. Interest is the return or compensation for the use or retention of another's money. The respondents have retained and enjoyed the benefit of such money so long. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest. Two decisions of Gujarat High Court support the view I have taken. In Vijay Textile, A partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e allowed and set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and quashed demand raised by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on the basis of the Show Cause Notice dated 16-2-1988 and held in Para 6 : "6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the demand raised by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on the basis of the show cause notice dated 16-2-1988 is quashed. The appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards the impugned demand of excise duty on 30-3-1991 and a further sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid by the appellant in pursuance of the interim order of the Tribunal dated 27-1-1992. In pursuance of the order dated 25-4-1997 passed by this Court the appellant has furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000. Since the demand has been quashed, it is directed that the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 which has been deposited by the appellant be refunded to the appellant with interest @ 12% and the bank guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000 furnished by the appellant shall stand discharged. No order as to costs." (h) From the above case laws and submissions made, we find no reason to come to a conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
