Page 162 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

840 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

of Sections 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be straightaway applied
for awarding interest. The Central Government has rationalised the rate of inter-
est over a period of the considering various factors for the aforesaid purpose. As
such payment of interest at such rationalised would not result in any loss to the
Government as it has always been below the bank interest payable for fixed de-
posit. Since the petitioner is entitled for compensation, I am inclined to order
payment of interest on the same principle by applying the rate of interest pre-
scribed under notification issued under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962
prescribed for the purpose of refund of customs duty under Section 27 of the said
Act.
21. The 2nd respondent is therefore directed to calculate the interest at
the varying rate of interest that was notified and in force for the purpose of re-
fund [under] Section 27H of the Customs Act and determine the interest payable
to the petitioner on the delayed payment of Rs. 10.72,624/- calculated at the expi-
ry of six months from the date of sale of the imported goods. The 2nd respondent
shall calculate the aforesaid amount within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
22. The writ petition stands out with the above observation. No cost.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 840 (Del.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
D.N. Patel, C.J. and C. Hari Shankar, J.
PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DRI
Versus
CUS., C. E. & S.T. SETT. COMM.
CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
CUS.,C.E. & S.T. SETT.COMM.
W.P. (C) No. 4143 of 2018 and CM APPL No. 16289 of 2018 (Stay),
decided on 10-2-2020
Settlement Application - Smuggling of cigarettes - Goods notified af-
ter import but prior to filing application - Maintainability of application - In-
stant case, cigarettes were imported in Feb./April, 2016, seized by DRI in April,
2016, show cause notice issued in April, 2017 and Settlement Applications
filed in Aug./Dec., 2017 - Meanwhile in July, 2016, said goods were notified
under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD : Settlement Commission clear-
ly erred in entertaining applications in Aug./Dec., 2017 on ground that at time
of import of goods, these were not notified under Section 123 ibid and hence
bar under third proviso of Section 127B ibid was not applicable - Both on date
of issuing show cause notice and on date of filing of applications, cigarettes
had become a notified item - Bar under Section 127B ibid is enforceable on
‘date when application was made’ and not from date of import - Since, applica-
tions in this case were made after goods had been notified ibid, Settlement
Commission had no power, jurisdiction and authority to entertain and decide
Settlement Application - Impugned order set aside - Section 127 of Customs
Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of India. [para 5(d)(e)(f)]
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  162