2013 (4) TMI 282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vember 2009 passed under Section 127C(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, directed as follows : (i) The customs duty was settled at Rs.5,48,381/- which was already paid; (ii) Interest of Rs.32,660/- was paid by the Petitioner; (iii) Immunity was granted from payment of a penalty in excess of Rs.50,000/-; and (iv) Immunity was granted from fine in lieu of confiscation in excess of Rs.1.00 lakh. 3. The Settlement Commission also granted an immunity from prosecution under the Customs Act, 1962 (`the Act'). The Settlement Commission further issued the following direction : "Release of Goods/Sale Proceeds : The Bench holds that the applicant is entitled to release of the seized goods on payment of fine and penalty adjudged as above. S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....January 2013 by the Revenue that an amount of Rs.15,40,309/- was paid to the Petitioner on 20 May 2012. The only surviving issue related to the payment of interest on which the Revenue was required to file an affidavit-in-reply. 7. A reply has been filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The submission in the reply is that the amount paid to the Petitioner pursuant to the order of the Settlement Commission represents the balance of sale proceeds of the goods auctioned or disposed of after adjustments under Section 150 of the Act. According to the Revenue, since the amount paid does not represent the amount of duty or interest, the provisions of Sections 27 and 27A of the Act are not applicable. It has also been stated in the reply t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 150 of the Act. This order was passed on 9 November 2009. Though no period was stipulated in the order of the Settlement Commission for the grant of refund, the entire exercise ought to have been carried out within a reasonable period of time. A refund in the present case was not granted to the Petitioner despite several representations. Moreover, as the documents which have been revealed in pursuance of a query under the RTI Act now demonstrate, though a refund was duly sanctioned by the Commissioner, no refund was paid over till the petition was filed. All statutory powers have to be exercised within a reasonable period even when no specific period is prescribed by a provision of law. It can be no defence to urge that the Customs A....