2008 (9) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and N. Anand, the learned Advocates, appeared on behalf of appellant and Smt. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, for the Respondent. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The brief facts are as follows: The appellant filed an appeal (No. C/219/2006) before this Tribunal against the Order-in-Original No. 20/2005, dated 30-8-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. The Bench heard the above appeal and issued the Final Order No. 1864/2006, dated 1-11-2006 allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, with consequential relief. 4.1 During the investigation stage, it has been stated by the learned Advocate that the appellants were coerced into pay of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt which was coercively collected from the appellant was not authorized by law and hence, the department had, without authority of law, collected the above sums from the appellant. It was urged that the amount paid by them was not in the nature of duty. Therefore, the provisions of Section 27 or 27A would not be applicable. It was also argued that Article 265 of the Constitution of India provides that no duty shall be levied and collected except by authority of law. Therefore, when the amounts collected by the Department were without authority of law, the Department is duty bound to grant interest on the amounts. Further, it was mentioned that the department not only denied exemption benefit wrongly but also coerced the appellant to pay the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ithout the authority of law was directed to pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of deposit, [para 3] 4. VBC Industries Ltd. v. CC, Chennai - 2005 (192) E.L.T. 275(Tri.-Bang.) When the interest collected was held to be not sustainable, the appellants were held to be entitled for interest on the amount illegally collected by the Department. The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Narendra Doshi, 254 ITR 606(S.C.) was followed [para-5]. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT case reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) - 2006 (280) ITR 643 (SC) held that there is no question of delay being justifiable and even if the Revenue takes an erroneous view of the law, that cannot mean that the w....