S PREM GIRI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for issuing Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the order of the second respondent dated 24.9.2002 and directing the first respondent to pay the interest of Rs.1,47, 798/-.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: On 27.11.1989 the authorities under the respondent had seized Indian Currency Notes worth Rs.4,25,000/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order for confiscation of gold bars and currency notes and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. By order dated 17.1.2000, the Appellate Tribunal while upholding the direction regarding confiscation of gold bar and imposition of penalty of Rs.1,00,00/-, directed to return the currency notes worth of Rs.4,25,000/-. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had made a pre-deposit of Rs.25,000/-. Subsequently the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Application No.104/2000 in C.A.No.220/91 before the Tribunal praying for implementation of the final order dated 17.1.2000 and to return the amount along with the interest at the rate of 24% from the date of seizure. On 23.11.2000, the Appellate Tribunal passed an order directing the authorities to “return the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum as has been directed in the cited judgment within 1 month from the date of receipt of this order”. Subsequently, the Department after adjusting the pre-deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- towards penalty and further adjusting the balance sum of Rs.75,000/- payable towards penalty, refunded a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- along with a further sum of Rs.33,278/- towards interest. Subsequently a petition was filed by the petitioner contending that the interest should be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of seizure of the currency notes and not from the date when the amount was deposited by the Department in the treasury. The aforesaid contention was rejected by the Tribunal on 24.9.2002, which held that the interest amount has been rightly calculated.

(3.) During pendency of the writ petition, petitions to amend the prayer in the writ petition and to implead the proposed second respondent has been filed and they are allowed.