TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (5) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs. By the adjudication order, it was directed that the duty be assessed at US $530 per MT c.i.f. as against the tendered value of US $360 per MT. The difference in duty in these circumstances came to Rs. 35,000. The full redemption fine and penalty as well as difference in duty was deposited on 29th August, 1979. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of adjudication and the appeal came to be ultimately heard by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, which decided the same vide its order dated 29th February, 1980 and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision application before the Central Government which on account of change in law, was transferred to the Tribunal and the revision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was without authority of law. In exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this court, the petitioners should be compensated by payment of interest for the period for which the petitioners have been deprived of the use of their money and the respondents 1 and 3 enjoyed the benefit thereof by illegally retaining the petitioners' money. 4. Learned counsel supported his contention by placing reliance on Calcutta Paper Mills Manufacturing Co. v. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and Others, 1986 (25) E.L.T. 939 (Tribunal) wherein it has been observed that if the Excise Authorities have collected any amount as tax without authority of law, it is just and proper that they should pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he date of Appellate Collector's order till the date of payment. 7. A Single Bench decision of this court has also been cited, in re : Redihot Electricals v. Union of India, 1989 (43) E.L.T. 253 (Del.). The learned Judge placed reliance on 1979 (4) E.L.T. 181 and 1979 (4) E.L.T. 546 (sic) and also on 1986 (25) E.L.T. 939 and ordered that it would be just and proper that the respondents should pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the collection of the amount till the date of actual payment. 8. Mr. Madan Lokur, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Customs Authorities exercised quasi-judicial functions while adjudicating matters arising under the Customs Act. The view taken by the authority may be upheld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s (supra). It may be stated that in Talwar Dass v. Union of India, AIR 1955 S.C. 468, their Lordships held that the Interest Act applies where interest is not otherwise payable by law and the conditions which require to be fulfilled were considered by their Lordships. Interest can be awarded under the aforesaid Act. It was also observed that the court cannot allow interest simply because it thought that the demand was reasonable. Another authority of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Lokur is India Cement Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. - 1989 (41) E.L.T. 358 (SC). In the appeal before their Lordships, as to whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of Rs. 22,43,002.09 paid as excise duty on the price of packing material, while allowin....