2009 (6) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he original authority correctly worked out the interest payable to the respondent under Section 27A on the amount of duty refunded to them. In its original order, the adjudicating authority had sanctioned refund of duty along with interest of Rs. 79,938/- to the respondent. By a corrigendum, it reduced the amount of interest to Rs. 43,179/- in view of Notifications 21/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 11-5-2001, 25/2002-Cus. (N.T.), dated 13-5-2002 and 75/2003-Cus. (N.T.), dated 12-9-2003. These notifications, which were issued by the Central Government under Section 27A prescribed 9%, 8% and 6% of interest respectively payable to a successful refund-claimant in the event of continued delay of refund. The rate of interest payable for the earlier part....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ender the remaining successive notifications redundant and, therefore, the argument cannot be accepted. The expression "time being" denotes each and every point of time of delay If the delay starts on 12-5-2000, the rate of interest payable will be 15%. If this delay continues beyond 10-5-2001, interest becomes payable at the rate of 9% for the period from 11-5-2001. Likewise, where the delay continues beyond 12-5-2001, interest becomes payable at the rate of 8% from 13-5-2002. In this manner, the notifications issued by the Central Government operate as rightly held by the original authority. Therefore, the view taken by the appellate authority cannot be accepted and to this extent the impugned order is bad in law. 3. The second question ....