TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants are before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel and the Consultant appearing for the appellant submit the chronological event of the case by way of the following Table: DATE PARTICULARS 17.01.2008 The DRI, EZU conducted search at the godown of the Appellant and seized 56 nos. of old and used offset printing Machines and were kept in appellant's godown against Supardnama. 09.07.08 Provisional released allowed on seized goods except 26 seized machines which were clandestinely removed by appellant 09.05.2008 One FIR under Section 400/34 of IPC was lodged by DRI at Anant Bihar Police Station in Delhi for clandestine removal of 24 seized machines from the place of seizure 15.01.2009 The DRI Authority issued show cause notice bearing DRI F. No. 04/KOL/APP/2008 dated 15.01.2009 in respect of 26 offset printing machine out of 56 No seized machines. 06.11.2009 Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed the quashing petition filed by the appellant against the FIR. 04.03.2010 The appellant preferred settlement application before the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission (Principal Bench), New Delhi in respect of the said DRI show cause notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial customs duty Rs 1,00,42,831/- and total penalty Rs 1,55,12,831/- under Sections 114(a), 112(a) and 112(b) 23.02.2022 CESTAT, Kolkata disposed of appeal against O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/PORT/07/2014 vide Final Order No. 75131-75136/2022, setting aside the O-I-O on jurisdictional grounds in light of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Canon India; appeal allowed with consequential relief. 03.02.2023 Appellant submitted refund application for Rs.1,30,17,176/- after adjustment 29.05.2023 Deputy Commissioner sanctioned Rs.1,30,17,176/- vide O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/DC/ARS(PORT)/326/20236 dated 29.05.2023 (Refund Order No. (108), 26.06.2023 Appellant filed application before Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata claiming interest of Rs.14,58,123/- on Rs.60,75,515/- (from the date of realisation i.e., 08.08.2019 by the Department till the refund sanctioned i.e., 29.05.2023) on the principle of banking fixed deposit without preferring appeal against O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/DC/ARS(PORT)/326/20236 dated 29.05.2023 25.07.2023 Again vide O-I-O No. KOL/CUS/AC/ARS (PORT)/408/2023 the Department sanctioned only Rs.55,635/- as interest (26 days @6% p.a.) vide Refund Order No.144 igno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amount, along with the accrued interest, to the appellant, this was not done. On 08.08,2019, the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata encashed the entire amount [the basic FD plus the accrued interest] of Rs.60,75,515, whereas they were entitled for only Rs.25,80,240 out of the total amount of the FD. 2.4. The subsequent proceedings initiated against the appellant got closed with the CESTAT passing the Final Order No.75131-15136 of 2022 dated 23.02.2022, with the appeal filed by the appellant being allowed. No further appeal was preferred by the Revenue. Therefore, the proceedings have reached finality. In respect of the second SCN proceedings getting closed on 23.02.2022, the appellant had deposited Rs.95,21,901/-, which was required to be refunded to the appellant as a consequential relief. 2.5. Vide the Order-in-Original dated 25.07.2023, the adjudicating authority granted the refund of Rs.95,21,901/- + Rs.60,75,515/- deducting from therein Rs.25,80,240/-, thus granting refund of Rs.1,30,17,176/-. This refund of Rs.1,30,17,176/- was granted without any interest. After their reminder letter to this effect, vide Order-in-Original dated 27.07.2023, the interest of Rs.55,635/- fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....art, the materials on record indicate that an adjudication in the present case has been completed by an order of the Settlement Commission. The duty, interest, penalty, etc. have been quantified and ordered to be deducted from the amount lying in deposit with the Commissioner of Customs. to be If the matter has viewed from the aforesaid perspective, we find that there is no live cause of action in the instant matter to proceed any further. 7. Consequently and in the light of the above we allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and quash the impugned proceedings registered and numbered as FIR No.244/2008 under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Anand Vihar, Delhi. 8. Registry The amount lying in deposit in the of this Court after deduction/adjustment of the duty, interest, penalty, etc. and all other dues, duly certified by the Customs Authority will be refunded to the appellants forthwith." 5.1. From the above portion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Order, it is clear the Revenue is entitled only for the Duty, Interest and Penalty as decided by the Settlement Commission and this amount is to be adjusted against the deposit ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the refund is payable on 11.08.2010 itself, the Revenue would be required to pay the interest for the period for which they have illegally held back the same, i.e. from 08.08.2019 till 29.05.2023. 7.1. The issue as to whether any interest is payable for the amount held back by the Revenue was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. CIT, Pune - 2007 (8) S.T.R. 193 (S.C.) wherein it was held that :- "45. The facts and the law referred to in paragraph (supra) would clearly go to show that the appellant was undisputably entitled to interest under Sections 214 and 244 of the Act as held by the various High Courts and also of this Court. In the instant case, the appellant's money had been unjustifiably withheld by the Department for 17 years without any rhyme or reason. The interest was paid only at the instance and the intervention of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1887 of 1992, dated 30-4-1997. Interest on delayed payment of refund was not paid to the appellant on 27-3-1981 and 30-4-1986 due to the erroneous view that had been taken by the officials of the respondents. Interest on refund was granted to the appellant after a substantial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctual value otherwise conferred; a recompense in value; a recompense given for a thing received recompense for the whole injury suffered; remuneration or satisfaction for injury or damage of every description; remuneration for loss of time, necessary expenditures, and for permanent disability if such be the result; remuneration for the injury directly and proximately caused by a breach of contract or duty; remuneration or wages given to an employee or officer." 47. There cannot be any doubt that the award of interest on the refunded amount is as per the statute provisions of law as it then stood and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. When a specific provision has been made under the statute, such provision has to govern the field. Therefore, the Court has to take all relevant factors into consideration while awarding the rate of interest on the compensation. 48. This is the fit and proper case in which action should be initiated against all the officers concerned who were all in charge of this case at the appropriate and relevant point of time and because of whose inaction the appellant was made to suffer both financially and mentally, even thou....