9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1083X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of Rs. 11,05,783/- on 25.06.2007, Rs. 10,16,590/- on 04.07.2007 and Rs. 41,282/- dated 26.07.2007 (Total Rs. 21,57,655/-) as recorded in the impugned order as well as in the related order-in-original (though the amounts do not up to the said total). The plea taken by the appellants while filing the refund claims was that the Revenue insisted upon them to deposit 15% p.a. interest on the delayed payment of custom duty vide letter dated 10.10.2005, when the rate of interest prescribed by Govt. was 13% p.a. effective from 12.09.2003 as per Notification No.76/2003-Cus(NT). On an intelligence, Revenue seized 40 containers of the appellants for mis-declaration and concealment at the port of importation (ICD). Revenue suspected that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 which states that in the case of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry in respect of such goods is presented under that Section. The liability of payment of duty in this case was during 2001, when the actual Bills of Entry were filed and the assessment made, but in this case after receiving an intelligence department detained/seized the entire 40 nos. of containers and also the goods cleared and was stored in the party's godown for mis-declaration. The case was adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD on 30.6.2003 imposing the redemption fine and penalty and the department also directed them to submit the Bills of Entry for the assessment. This is the case were the duty liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it being question of refund of interest, the provisions relating to unjust enrichment are not attracted in the present case. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. At the very outset it has to be delineated that the only issue involved in the present case is whether the appellants paid interest at a rate higher than the rate fixed by the Central Government for the period for which the interest was paid as per the directions of the Department. The primary adjudicating authority acknowledges that the Department directed the appellants to pay interest @ 15% p.a. from 30.09.2003 to 29.09.2005 under Section 28AA of the Act (although it is seen in para 2.3 of the primary adjudication order quoted above, it is stated that the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of interest so paid was more than what was required to be paid. It is pertinent to note that there has been no action on the part of Revenue with a view to recovering interest from 2001. As stated earlier no Show Cause Notice has been issued to first determine quasi-judicially as to from which the date the interest is recoverable; indeed even a simple letter demanding interest from 2001 has not been issued. Thus the observation of the adjudicating authority to the effect that because the interest is recoverable from the year 2001, the Department charged interest from the appellant as per law is devoid of any basis, logic or rationale. The Department demanded interest for the period 30.09.2003 upto 29.09.2005 at the rate of 15% p.a. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
