9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ently, he filed another shipping bill declaring the goods correctly under claim for drawback. The case was adjudicated and the goods were confiscated but the appellant was allowed to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh vide order dated 11-11-1994. The appellant made the payment of fine and penalty but contested the same before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order No. CII/639/WZB/2001, dated 12-3-2001 [2001 (134) E.L.T. 449 (Tri.-Mum.)] set aside the confiscation as well as redemption fine and the penalty was reduced from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 10,000/-. Consequent to the Tribunal's order, the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs allowed refund of redemption fine and penalty amounting to Rs. 4,90,000/- vid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the second round of litigation, the Tribunal vide order dated 16-11-2010 had allowed the appeal. Thus, the plea of the appellant for allowing interest already stands approved by the Tribunal and, therefore, the same cannot be denied by the lower authorities. 3.3 The learned Advocate also submits that as per Section 129EE of the Customs Act, 1962, interest on delayed refund of the amount deposited under the proviso to Section 129E is permissible at the rate specified in Section 27A of the Customs Act, after the expiry of three months from the date of communication of the order of the appellate authority till the date of refund of such amount. In the present case the appellant has been granted refund by the jurisdictional A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. In the present case, the refund become due to the appellant vide order dated 12-3-2001 passed by this Tribunal and the refund was also granted to the appellant vide order dated 29-9-2008 passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. However, payment of the refund was not made due to dispute in this regard raised by the department and the same was settled against the Revenue and in favour of the appellant vide order dated 16-11-2010 and, thereafter, the refund was paid to the appellant on 9-6-2011. Therefore, the amount deposited by the appellant under protest, which was not challenged, is liable to be returned to the appellant along with interest w.e.f. 29-9-2008. Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled for the benefit of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
