TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circumstances, the petitioner sent repeated representations to the respondents to permit the petitioner to either take back the goods to Hong Kong or to sell the goods to any other buyer in India in accordance with the provisions of the EXIM Policy as in force at the relevant point of time - However, that was not allowed. The Tribunal by its order dated 27.7.1999 remanded the case back to the 1st respondent to consider the issue afresh as the respondents had already auctioned the imported goods. Instead of refunding the balance amount after due adjustment and appropriation the respondents have dragged on the proceedings for over a period of two decades. Therefore, the question is whether the petitioner should now be relegated to work out his remedy in a civil court as was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents or whether the court can award interest to the petitioner and if so at what rate? - The necessity for filing a suit under Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code would arise only where there are disputed questions of fact that needs to be established after trial. Such exercise would result in waste of time. The department will also have to be spare its officia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Commissioner has made a working, that shows that he has carried out the direction of the Tribunal in letter and spirit and applied his mind. When the worksheet of the Commissioner is making very clear entitling the appellant to the proportionate sale price of the goods and duty payable on the goods is deductible without keeping the matter pending, it is directed that the appellant shall be paid ₹ 10,72,624/- within one week of receipt of this order, identifying the claimant in accordance with law. ii. With the aforesaid direction appeal is allowed. In the meantime, if any money has been paid to the appellant on the disputed sale that shall be deducted while making the final payment as directed above. 2. The petitioner firm is an exporter of goods from Hong Kong. The goods were abandoned by the importer and therefore they were auctioned. The petitioner being the exporter from the Hong Kong initiated proceedings before the respondents which ultimately culminated in the above Final Order No.40071/2016 dated 13.01.2016 of Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 3. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for interest on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld, to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having custody of the goods, (c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold, (d) next to the payment of the charges in respect of the goods sold due to the person having the custody of the goods, (e) next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the goods to the Central Government under the provisions of this Act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the owner of the goods. Provided that where it is not possible to pay the balance of sale proceeds, if any, to the owner of the goods within a period of six months from the date of the sale of such goods or such further period as the Principal Commissioner of Customs Commissioner of Customs may allow, such balance of sale proceeds shall be paid to the Central Government. 10. The above Section prescribes on the manner in which the proceeds of the sale of the confiscated goods has to be appropriated and adjusted. After adjustment of the proceeds, balance if any, has to be paid back to the owner of the goods. Since there was delay in paying the amount to the owner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CCE , (2002) 7 SCC 145 at page 150. 12. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that denial of benefit of the notification to the appellant was unfair. There can be no doubt that the authorities functioning under the Act must, as are in duty bound, to protect the interest of the Revenue by levying and collecting the duty in accordance with law - no less and also no more. It is no part of their duty to deprive an assessee of the benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the quantum of duty for the benefit of the Revenue. They must act reasonably and fairly. 17. Though in a different context, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court is not just a Court of law, but is also a Court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. 18. Plain and simple fact of the case is that respondents have refused to pay the balance amount of the sale proceeds from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
