Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of interest on the refunded anti-dumping duty and whether the notice demanding return of alleged excess interest could be sustained.
Analysis: The petitioner had deposited anti-dumping duty under protest and the Division Bench had directed refund of the duty with interest at the prevailing bank rate in the event of success. The refund was later allowed, and interest was also quantified and sanctioned by the customs authority in compliance with the court's directions. The revenue's appeal and revision against the interest order had failed, and no stay operated against the order granting interest. In these circumstances, the revenue could not continue to withhold the amount merely because further proceedings were said to be pending. The impugned notice demanding refund of the so-called excess interest was therefore inconsistent with the operative refund order.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release of the interest, and the notice seeking recovery of excess interest was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where interest on refund has been granted pursuant to an operative judicial or quasi-judicial order and no stay is in force, the revenue cannot withhold or recover the amount merely on the basis of pending further challenge.