Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, Section 4, 5 – Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, Rule 2(e) – Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, Section 3 (since repealed by the Act, 1992)- Customs Act, 1962,Sections27, 27A, 74,75 and 75A – Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 11A, 11AA, 11B, 11BB, 12C, 37 – Finance Act, 1994, Section 93Aread with Section 94 – Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. Rule 2(a), 14 – Exim Policy, 1992-1997, paragraph 10(2)(d) – Notification bearingNo.32/1995 (NT)-Customs dated 26.05.1995 – Notification No.22/95-Central Excises (NT) dated29.05.1995 -Deemed export scheme – Benefits under ‘deemed export’ – Duty drawback–Delay in release – Interest claim –Challenge as to – Applications for refund were made in 1996 – Decision to grant refund of duty drawback was taken belatedly on07.10.2002 where after the payments were made by way of cheques on 31.03.2003 and 20.05.2003 – Admittedly, there was considerable delay in refund of duty drawback – Under sub-section (1) of Section 75A of the Customs Act, where duty drawback is not paid within a period of three months from the date of filing of claim, the claimant would be entitled to interest in addition to the amount of drawback at the rate fixed under Section 27A from the date after expiry of the said period of three months till the payment of such drawback –As per Section 27A, the interest rate prescribed thereunder at the relevant point of time was not below ten percent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum – Central Board of Excise and Customs vide its notification bearing No.32/1995 (NT) – Customs dated 26.5.1995had fixed the rate of interest at fifteen percent for the purpose of Section 27A of the Customs Act – Held that the respondent was entitled to refund of duty drawback – Since there was belated refund of the duty drawback to the respondent, it was entitled to interest at the rate which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time being fifteen percent – Find no good reason to interfere with the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 22.8.2008 – Appeal liable to be dismissed. (Para 35 to 39)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 78 SC
[2024 INSC 83]
Union Of India And Ors. Vs. M/S. B. T. Patil And Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal No. 7238 of 2009-Decided on 05-02-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-78-SC.pdf
