TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fall in the export obligation, the adjudicating authority by his order dt. 31.7.2000 confirmed the demand of Rs. 3,83,990/- along with interest @ 24% and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 34,000/-. The respondent's appeal was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and on appeal before Tribunal, the case was remanded to the original authority vide Tribunal's Final Order No.1386-1387/2008 dt. 8.12.2008 for recomputation of duty and penalty. The adjudicating authority in the de novo proceedings vide order dt. 11.5.2013 re-worked out the shortage quantity and re-determined the duty of Rs. 3,44,210/- and also demanded interest @ 15% along with penalty. Respondent preferred an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) contesting only the interest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vs UOI 1996 (88) ELT 626 (SC) (4) Delta Paper Mills Ltd. Vs CCE Guntur 1995 (77) ELT 544 (A.P.) 5. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the respondents reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the interest as there is no authority to recover interest. The words mentioned at clause (ii) (b) of the notification No.204/92 clearly says only demand amount equal to the duty is leviable. There is no mention of interest. He also submits that there is no charging section to demand interest on the non-fulfillment of DEEC licensing condition. He relied on the following decisions :- (1) Whirlpool of India Ltd. 2003 (158) ELT 791 (Settlement Commission) (2) FEMCO Filters (P) Ltd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee materials when condition not complied. I find that when the adjudicating authority had discussed the issue of non-fulfilment of obligation in detail in the OIO, whereas LAA has not brought out any clear findings but merely said that in the absence of any provision in the said notification, interest is not demandable and he relied Tribunal's decisions. 8. There is no dispute on the facts that the respondent imported goods and cleared duty free and violated the conditions of DEEC Advance licence and the conditions of Notification No.204/92. Therefore, adjudicating authority confirmed the customs duty and also demanded the interest. The demand of interest for violation of conditions of Notfn.204/92 stands settled by the Hon'ble Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entire issue by the Settlement Commission afresh, in the light of the disclosure made by them it was open to the Settlement Commission to direct the petitioners to pay the customs duty with interest. Although the Settlement Commission has levied interest at a percentage, much less than what was agreed to pay by the petitioners in their bond and legal undertaking, the same being not an issue in this petition, we are not expressing any opinion in that behalf. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that once the petitioners committed breach of the terms of the exemption Notification No. 204/92, the Customs authorities were entitled to enforce the declaration with bond and legal undertaking given by the petitioners and recover customs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e terms and conditions of bond are very much binding on the petitioners. In the absence of legislative guidelines it was well within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to direct recovery of duty with interest as the bond prescribes recovery of duty with interest from the licence holder. So far as rate of interest determined by the Settlement Commission is concerned, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary looking to the prevailing bank rate on deposits. It is not in dispute that rate of interest awarded by the Settlement Commissions is much below rate prescribed in the bond. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with order of the Settlement Commission." The ratio of the above Hon'ble High Court order is squarely applic....