Disposed

M/S. Overseas Trading Corpn. v. the Commissionr of Customs and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2006WP/1322/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Bombay High Court directed the petitioner to seek clarification from the Customs Tribunal regarding whether interest at 20% p.a. was granted alongside the refund in the allowed appeal, directing the Tribunal to reply within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to seek clarification from the Tribunal within one week; Tribunal to decide clarification within two months.

M/S. Overseas Trading Corpn. Vs the Commissionr of Customs… — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARYORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITON NO.1322 OF 2006

¶4

 M/s.Overseas Trading Corporation ..Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 The Commissioner of Customs & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

 Ms.F.Sethna for petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.S.S.Pakale with A.S.Rao for respondents.

¶9

CORAM : V.C. DAGA AND
 J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 15TH JUNE, 2006.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

 Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Pakale

¶13

 appearing for the respondents waives service. Heard
 finally by consent of the parties. Perused petition
 with rival pleadings.

¶14

 2. The short issue involved in this petition is

¶15

 that whether or not the Tribunal has allowed the claim
 of the interest @ 20% p.a., while allowing appeal filed
 by the petitioner.

¶16

 3. The learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

 -= : 2 : =-

¶18

 petitioner contends that reading of the order of the
 Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has not only
 allowed the refund but allowed the prayer claiming
 interest thereon. The prayer clause reads as under :-

¶19

 " It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that
 the impugned order dated 25-6-97 passed by
 Smt.PRGM V.P.Singh, Commissioner of Customs,
 Appeal, Mumbai and the order of Shri K.D.
 Manker, Additional Commissioner of Customs,
 Group VII, Mumbai dated 20/23 December,
 1996, be set aside and orders be passed that
 the customs duty paid by the appellant be
 immediately refunded to him with interest at
 the rate of 20% till the date of its
 realization. Further orders be passed that
 the bank guarantee furnished by the
 appellant be also discharged and/or pass any
 other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may
 deem fit and proper in the circumstances of
 the case. "

¶20

 4. The relevant part of the order passed by the
 Tribunal is as under:-

¶21

 "..Following the said two decisions of the
 Tribunal, we allow the appeal of the

¶22

 -= : 3 : =-

¶23

 appellant with consequential relief."

¶24

 5. In short, the submission of the petitioner
 is that the entire appeal is allowed with consequential
 relief. Hence petitioner is entitled to claim the
 amount of interest @ 20% on the amount of refund which
 has already been paid to the petitioner.

¶25

 6. Per contra, Mr.Pakale appearing for the
 respondents submits that if the order is read in its
 proper perspective, it would be absolutely clear that
 the interest has not been allowed. He submits that the
 implementing authority; namely; Dy. Commissioner of
 Customs has passed an order saying the Tribunal could
 not have awarded the interest as claimed. He, thus,
 submits that the petitioner has been rightly denied
 interest.

¶26

 7. Having heard the rival parties and having
 seen the contentions raised by the rival parties in the
 light of prayer clause and operative part of the order,
 it would reasonable to direct the petitioner to seek a
 clarification of the order from the Tribunal itself.
 In the event the Tribunal clarifies that the claim of
 refund was granted with interest, it would be
 obligatory on the part of the respondents to obey and
 implement the said order within 4 weeks from the date

¶27

 -= : 4 : =-

¶28

 of communication of the order, subject to their legal
 right and available remedy against that order in
 accordance with law. The Tribunal is expected to
 decide the application for clarification as
 expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period
 of 2 months from the date of filing of the application
 provided necessary application is filed within one week
 from today.

¶29

 8. In the above view of the matter, petition
 stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the terms
 of this order with no order as to costs.

¶30

(V.C. DAGA, J.)

¶31

 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

M/S. Overseas Trading Corpn. v. the Commissionr of Customs and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Overseas Trading Corpn. v. the Commissionr of Customs and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Computer Karishma Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Collector of Customs and Ors.

M/S.Union Industries Vs Union of India and Ors.

Punnilathu B.Nivas Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs M/S. S. P. Pawar and Sons

the commissioner of customs (general and cfs mulund) Vs m/s agarwal marble (i) Pvt. Ltd.

The Comm. of Customs, Pune Vs M/S.Cosper Impex Pvt.Ltd.