ORIENT ENTERPRISES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner imported certain items and clearance of the' same was sought against three bills of entry. However, after show cause notice was issued and proceedings v/ere initiated, an order was passed against the petitioner, the petitioner deposited the duty, redemption fine and personal penalty on 29-8-1979. The Collector of Customs gave an option to release the goods on payment of Rs. 8 lacs and in addition imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lacs. By the adjudication order, it was directed that the duty assessed at US S 530 per MT Cif 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 was treated as an appeal. By older dated 14-8-85, the appeal was allowed and the orders of the Customs authorities below were set aside. It was also dueeted that the petitioners would be given consequential relief in compliance with the order of the Tribunal. The petitioners case further is that the petitioners served notices for the refund of the amount and ultimately a legal notice through Counsel was alsserved in April, 1986 but the amount was not refunded. The petitioners also approached the Tribunal in June, 1986 for issuance of necessary directions to the Collector of Customs, Cochin to pay the amount. The Tribunal ultimately ordered on 8th May, 1987 that the amount be refunded within 60 clays and that the Collector shall report back by 15th July, 1987. The order of the Tribunal even was not complied with. Ultimately on 29th August, 1987, the amount of Rs. 10. 35,000 v/as paid back to the petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 3 to pay interest to the petitioner at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount illegally retained without the authority of law from the date of deposit till the date of repayment i.e. 29th August, 1987.

(2.) Mr. G.L. Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have been deprived of the use of their money and so, the petitioners are entitled to interest from the date of deposit till the date of repayment. The retention of money under the adjudication order was a without authority of law. In exercise of the equitable jurisdiction of this court, the petitioners should be compensated by payment cf interest for the period for which the petitioners have been deprived of the use of their money end the respondents I and 3 enjoyed the benefit thereof by illegally retaining the petitioners money.

(3.) 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) ELT 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 cent per annum from the date of collection of the said amount till the date of actual payment.