TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... gap of so many years. The department served a notice dated 11/01/2017 for short levy and interest. The appellant vide letter 14/02/2017 requested the Deputy Commissioner to waive the interest and penalty. The department has written a letter dated 13/02/2017 and 14/02/2017 to Central Bank of India, Fort, Mumbai asking them to freeze the account of the appellant. The department sent a letter dated 05/04/2017 asking the appellant to pay interest of Rs. 3,94,337. The appellants have paid the duty short paid of Rs. 1, 02,501, vide three different challans dated 31/01/2007, 14/02/2017 & 17/02/2017. The appellants requested vide representations dated 03/05/2017, 20/03/2017 and 12/07/2017. In view of the department letter an amount of Rs. 2, 60,000/- was debited from the drawback account of the importer on 20/06/2017 and 05/07/2017. 2.2. The appellants filed an appeal No C/87040/17-Mum with CESTAT and an application dated 17/10/2017 for lifting the orders freezing the accounts. CESTAT passed an order No M/90704/17-SMB dated 03/11/2017 calling for the reply of the respondent Commissioner on 24/11/2017. CESTAT held, inter alia, that sudden freezing of the bank accounts in the year 2017 w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xistence. Had the appellant deposited the duty before 03/02/1997 there would have been no interest to be paid as the payment of duty was delayed from 03/02/1997 to 17/02/2017, interest was calculated. As the importer did not even respond to letters, orders were issued for freezing the bank account maintained with SBI, CBI and ICICI banks. As there was insufficient balance accounts in CBI and SBI have been defreezed and the department reserves the right to recover the balance interest amount of Rs. 1,34,337. 2.4. Tribunal Vide order dated 24/11/2017 has observed that the Revenue authority below has defied the order of the Tribunal in without complying to the grounds of the order had disclosed to the appellants as there is any reason to defreeze the ICICI accounts when they have filed the letter stating that the accounts in CBI and SBI have been defreezed; neither the Commissioner nor the Chief Commissioner took pain to reduce the litigation. The Tribunal also issued notice to the learned Commissioner to show-cause the reason as to why contempt shall not be drawn against him for defying the order of the Tribunal passed on 03/11/2017. It was also directed that the appellant shall b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the copies of the less charge demand and the adjudication order though the copies were very faint and submitted that it could be inferred from the same that they have been sent by post and copies of the same have also been handed over to the CHA under acknowledgement. He has also submitted that freezing of the accounts was in terms of the provisions of Section 142 of the Customs, Act, 1962. He also submitted that as regards the applicability of interest that the same is discussed in the order of the learned Commissioner dated 14/12/2017. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5.1. There are three issues involved in the case: a) Whether principles of natural justice have been violated vis-à-vis less charge demand and adjudication order issued to the appellants. b) Whether the provisions of interest which came into effect in 1996 can be made applicable to the imports made in 1992. c) Whether the Revenue was within their right to freeze the accounts of the appellant. d) Whether there is a case for contempt proceedings against the Commissioner. 5.2. Going by the facts of the case as discussed earlier, the Bill of Entry was filed in July 1992 less char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d have also handed over them the letters. In the result, I find that both the sides have contributed to the condition where principles of Natural Justice have been violated in spirit, if not in Letter. Normally, the issue may have to go back to the However, thus the Original adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration. However, looking in to the fact that the issue is quite old, the facts of the case and submissions of the Learned Counsel that they have paid the duty, I find that no purpose would be solved, in remanding the matter back, than further procrastination of the litigation which is already 3 decades old. I find that such a decision would not be in the interest of justice and the Government revenue cannot be put in a jeopardy due to the commissions or omissions of some officers. 5.3. I will examine the provisions of interest which came into effect in 1996 and as to whether they can be made applicable to the imports made in 1992. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the levy and collection of interest was introduced for the first time with effect from 26/05/1995 and it was prospective only; for recovery of interest, a notice in terms of Section 28 (3) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Further I find that similar view was taken in the following cases. (i). CCE, Madurai Vs Vasu Chemicals 2018(361) ELT 167 (Mad) (ii). Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd Vs CCE-Hyderabad-II 2016(333) ELT 395 (Tri-LB) (iii). CCE, Coimbatore Vs Elgi Equipment Ltd 2001(128) ELT 52 (SC) (iv). Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd Vs CC Trichy 2014(311) ELT 91(Tri-Chennai). In view of the above, I find that the appellant is not required to pay any interest. It was not correct for the department to collect Interest. Moreover, the manner in which the department proceeded to collect interest also sounds high handed. The appellant should have been put to Notice and a reasonable opportunity should have been given to appellants for representing their case. While the same was not done, jumping straight way to coercive measures was certainly uncalled for. Therefore, Interest collected being without authority of Law needs to be refunded along with applicable interest. 5.4. Coming to the issue of whether the Revenue was right in freezing the accounts of the Appellants to recover the duty and interest, the Learned authorised representative for the department submitted that the action was taken under....