LINK ENTERPRISES Vs. C.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal dated 6.4.2005 which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant for the claim of interest on refund.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellants were clearing furnace oil under bond from Kandla Customs House to Bombay Customs House without payment of Customs duty. The said tankers were seized by the Controller of Rationing. The office of the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vide their letter dated 17.11.2003 directed the appellants to pay applicable Customs duty on the quantity of furnace oil in the tanker seized by the Controller of Rationing. The appellants deposited the entire amount of Customs duty on 18.11.2003. Subsequently the appellants approached the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ petition to get release of tankers seized by the Controller of Rationing. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the petition in favour of the appellant on 12.4.2004. The appellants filed a refund claim with the authorities on 20th May, 2004 after delivering furnace oil in the said tanker and producing re -warehousing certificate to the authorities. The authorities sanctioned the refund claim of the Customs duty to the appellants on 27th June, 2004. The appellants sought interest on the amount from 18.11.2003 to 27.6.2004. This interest claim has been rejected by the lower authorities.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the action of the Customs authorities to collect the amount of customs duty on 18.11.2003 was unwarranted, and hence, amount collected by them is an amount not due to the Government. It is his submission that once the amount is held to be not due to the Government, authorities should have refunded the amount along with interest. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunil Fire Works Industries Ltd. v. CCE, as reported at for the proposition that the Supreme Court has granted interest for the amount deposited by the appellants therein, on the appeal being allowed. It is his submission that when the goods are under Customs bond, demand of Customs duty by the authorities on 17.11.2003 was not correct.