VARDHAMAN ACRYLICS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAMNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue involved in the present appeal relates to quantum of interest in terms of Section 61(2) Clause 2(ii) of Customs Act, 1962. The same stands charged by the Revenue in terms of the Notification No. 10/2001 -Cus. (N.T.), dt. 1 -3 -2001 issued by the Central Government in terms of Section 61 fixing the rate of interest as 24% per annum, in respect of clearances of warehoused goods. The said interest so calculated by the authorities was paid by the appellant. However, subsequently they claimed refund of the same on the ground that rate of interest under Section 61(2)(ii) of the Act cannot exceed the rate of interest fixed under Section 47. Inasmuch as, during the relevant time, the rate of interest fixed under Section 47 was 15% vide Notification No. 28/2002 -Cus., dated 13 -5 -2002, the appellant claimed that the rate of interest in terms of Section 61 cannot exceed 15%.

(2.) THE above plea of the appellant was rejected by the authorities below. For better appreciation, I reproduce the Para 3 of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) : The appellant were heard on 23 -6 -2005. I have carefully examined the arguments put up by the appellant. The appellant has been in error in equating the rate of interest fixed by the Central Government under Section 47(2) of the Act (vide the Notification No. 28/2002 -Cus., dt. 13 -5 -2002) with the limit referred to in Section 61(2)(ii) of the Act. What it requires is that the interest shall be payable at such rate or rates not exceeding the rate specified in Section 47. The appellant has confused the verb specified with fixed. The rate of interest 15% was fixed and not specified by the Central Government under Section 47; the rate of interest that was specified under Section 47 was 30%. So the Board had rightly fixed the rate of interest at 24% by observing the limit of 30%. The Circular No. 68/2002, dt. 24 -10 -2002 was relevant and correctly followed by the lower authority. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the interest was correctly calculated by the Department. The impugned order requires no interference.

(3.) APART from the fact that no infirmity can be found in the above reasonings of Commissioner (Appeals)s order, I am of the view that by challenging the quantification of interest, appellant is seeking to challenge the notification issued by the Board. The said Notification No. 10/2001 -Cus. stands issued by the Board in terms of the provisions of Section 61 and cannot be challenged before the Tribunal. If the appellant is aggrieved with the fixation of rate vide the said notification, the other avenues are open to him for challenging the vires. In any case, I find that the issue also stands decided by the Board and the rate of 24% is within the range prescribed under Section 47. As such, I find no merits in the appeal and reject the same.