Page 158 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

836 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

2020 (372) E.L.T. 836 (Mad.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J.
SUNCHAN TRADING CO.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
W.P. No. 38155 of 2016, decided on 6-2-2020
1
Interest/Compensation - Statutory interest whether payable on sale
proceeds auction of imported goods abandoned by importer - Petitioner be-
came entitled to the amount finally pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in
1999 but instead of refunding the balance amount after due adjustment and
appropriation respondents have dragged on the proceedings for over a period
of two decades - Petitioner entitled for compensation as the Government has
retained substantial amount belonging to the petitioner for more than two
decades - Interest to be paid by applying the rate of interest prescribed under
notification issued under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribed for
the purpose of refund of customs duty under Section 27 ibid - Section 150 of
Customs Act, 1962. [paras 9, 13, 20]
Strictures against Revenue authorities - No doubt that the authorities
functioning under the Act must, as are in duty bound, protect the interest of
the revenue by levying and collecting the duty in accordance with law, no less
and also no more - It is no part of their duty to deprive any assessee of the
benefit available to him in law with a view to augment the quantum of duty
for the benefit of the revenue - They must act reasonably and fairly. [para 16]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Cosmo Tours & Travels v. Union of India — 2010 (4) AD (Delhi) 565 — Referred ................... [Paras 6, 7]
Fargo Marine Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2014 (304) E.L.T. 642 (S.C.) — Referred ...................... [Para 5]
Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Union of India —
W.P. No. 388 of 2003, decided on 2-5-2011 by Calcutta High Court — Referred ............ [Paras 6, 7]
Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India — (2007) 8 SCC 449 — Relied on ................................. [Para 17]
Unichem Laboratories Ltd. v. Collector — 2002 (145) E.L.T. 502 (S.C.) — Relied on .................... [Para 16]
REPRESENTED BY : Ms. Vinu Priya Muthuramalingam for Shri S.
Murugappan, for the Petitioner.
Shri A.P. Srinivas, Standing Counsel, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, praying for a
direction to the 2nd respondent to pay interest on the sale proceeds of the auc-
tion conducted on 19-6-1998, 24-6-1998, 15-7-2008 and 20-7-1998 which has been
directed to be paid back to the petitioner by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 40071/2016, dated 13-1-2016. The
operative portion of the said order reads as under :-
(i) When the report has been called from the Commissionerate as per the
direction of the bench on 16-4-2015, the Commissioner has replied by
________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from Final Order No. 40071/2016, dated 13-1-2016 by CESTAT, Chennai.
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  158