CSM SHANMUGA MUDALIAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is for a direction to the Commissioner for payment of interest to the applicant on Indian currency of Rs. 3,80,150/ - which remained in the custody of the Department from 2 -12 -1988 to 27 -10 -2005. The prayer is for a relief claimed to be consequential to Final Order No. 1039/2005, dated 25 -7 -2005 passed by this Bench in Appeal No. C/587/98. It has been filed under Rules 40 and 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.

(2.) AFTER examining the records and hearing both sides, we find that confiscation of the above currency was set aside as per Final Order No. 1039/2005 ibid. The currency was released to the applicant on 27 -10 -2005. Subsequently, it appears, he claimed interest on the amount and the same has not been entertained by the Department. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this application. It is submitted by his counsel that this Tribunal has discretionary power under the above -said rules to direct payment of interest on the amount of money which was illegally retained by the Department. In this connection, reliance is placed on the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Arun Kumar and Co. v. Commissioner of Customs , wherein this Tribunal was held to have supervisory powers for awarding interest on redemption fine which was belatedly released by the Customs authorities. Learned SDR, on the other hand, submits that the claim for interest was not consequential to the final order. Confiscation of the currency was set aside in that order and, consequently, the currency was released to the party. According to learned SDR, the final order thus stood implemented and nothing survives.

(3.) AFTER consulting the provisions cited by the applicant and considering the submissions of both sides, we find that the discretionary power conferred on us under Rule 41 ibid is one to be exercised for the ends of justice or for the prevention of abuse of the processes of the Tribunal or for giving effect to the final order passed by us. With the release of the currency by the Department to the applicant, our final order was carried into effect. Though the appeal prayed for setting aside confiscation and releasing currency, it did not contain a claim for interest on the amount. This claim for interest was staked after release of the currency. We think it is beyond our authority to entertain such a claim at this stage under the rules cited by the applicant. If the applicant has a valid claim for interest on the amount, their remedy in law lies elsewhere.