The Court held that levying interest from the date of import violates Section 28(AA) which mandates immunity for three months from the date of determination. The order levying interest from the import date was remanded for fresh consideration.
Impugned order on interest levy from date of import set aside and remanded for fresh consideration within 3 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
DATED: 27.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
W.P.No.4394 of 2005
M/s.A.V.Bhanojirow,
Garuda Pattabhiramaiya & Co., Rep. by its Partner, P.B.No.17, Vishakapatnam - 530035. ...Petitioner
Vs 1. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India through Secretary, North Block, New Delhi - 110011. 2. The Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise, Additional Bench, Narmada Block, Customs House, 33, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600001. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in Settlement Application No.SA(C) No.69 of 2003 dated 27.02.2004 and quash the portion of the order by which the second respondent has levied interest from the date of importation and direct that the interest shall run only from 17.11.2000 in accordance with Customs Act and direct the refunds of the excess interest paid.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Shankaranarayanan,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.K.P.Pramodh Kumar
For Respondents: Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel
O R D E R
The short point for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the order of the Settlement Commission in imposing interest from the date of import of the goods should be interfered with.
17.08.2000, the day on which the adjudication order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs was passed. Since the error in construing the statutory provision can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashahi Glass case (supra) has held that the High Court would be entitled to hold the correct proposition of law, this would not amount to dissecting the Settlement Commission's order.
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
hvk
To 1. The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India North Block, New Delhi - 110011.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Settlement Commission's order imposing interest from the date of import instead of the date of determination violates Section 28(AA) of the Customs Act.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Settlement Commission's order to correct the legal proposition regarding the commencement of interest levy without dissecting the order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of IndiaReferred¶19
2010 (251) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)
Union of India and others vs Asahi India Safety Glass LimitedReferred¶19
(2015) 11 SCC 451 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. A.V. Bhanojirow
Union of India
The Settlement Commission
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
