9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Brief facts of the case are as under :- The facts leading to the appeals are, in brief, as under :- 1.1 On 18-12-1993, Indian currency of Rs. 3,44,000/- was seized from the residence of the respondent, Mrs. Shashi Goyal under a reasonable belief that the same is sale proceeds of smuggled goods. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs vide Order-in-Original dated 19-11-1997 ordering absolute confiscation of the currency holding that the same is sale proceeds of smuggled goods. On appeal being filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the order-in-original was upheld. On appeal being filed before the Tribunal the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A/311-314/2000-NB (DB), dated 5-4-2000 ordered release of the currency ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner vide Order-in-Original dated 6-4-2010 held that the Respondent is not entitled to interest. However, on appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 27-7-2010 ordered the payment of interest to the Respondent at the rates as notified in the notification issued by the Government from time to time. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) while the Respondent, Mrs. Shashi Goyal filed an appeal before the Tribunal for ordering interest @ 18% per annum and the department has filed a review appeal challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing the payment of interest, on the ground that in case of return of the seized goods, there is no provisions in the Customs Act for payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals) has rightly relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Rang Lal reported in 2002 (144) E.L.T. A97 (S.C.), and of the Tribunal in the case of Warren Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. CC reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 313 (Tribunal-Mum.) wherein it has been held that when the sale proceeds of the seized goods which had been disposed of are required to be returned and there is delay in release of the same, party would be liable for interest at the rate of 10%, that the ratio of this judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, that in view of this, the Commissioner has rightly ordered payment of interest for delay in release of the currency and hence, there is no merit in the Reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is nothing in the said Section to pay interest for delays in refund of seized currency, which is not 'duty' but 'goods'. As discussed earlier, the currency is "goods" and when the seized/confiscated currency is ordered to be released by Appellate Authority/Court and that decision has not been challenged by the Department and the same has not been stayed or reversed by higher appellate authority, the same has to be returned to the person from whom the same had been seized and there would be no question of payment of interest on the value of such seized goods. It is settled law that the Tribunal, which is a creature of the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944, has to function within the four walls of these Acts and cannot do anyth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
