Revenue is liable to pay interest earned on seized amount of Indian Currency.

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2565

Case:- JYOTI AGARWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., CALCUTTA

Citation:- 2001 (137) E.L.T. 618 (Tri. - Kolkata)

Brief facts:- In this miscellaneous application the applicant seeks rectification of mistake in the Order No. A-1935-Cal/2000, dated 27-11-2000 [2001 (137)E.L.T.532 (T)] passed by this Bench of the Tribunal.

Appellant’s contention:-Shri Jyoti Agarwal, arguing himself, submits that in the appeal a prayer was made for a specific relief in the form of interest to be paid to him on the Indian currency of Rs. 33,500/- which was seized by the department for alleged violation of the provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. He points out that despite the said prayer, the Tribunal’s order dated 27-11-2000 did not contain any direction in that regard. In this connection, he invites attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ram Kumar Kamal Kumar v. CCE, Calcutta-1999 (112)E.L.T.937 (T), in which, under similar circumstances, interest was allowed on the seized amount and the MA (ROM) filed in that case was allowed by way of inserting an additional paragraph to the Tribunal’s earlier order dated 27-11-1998. He, therefore, prays that similar relief may also be extended to him by allowing the present Miscellaneous Application.

Respondent’s contention:- Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue submits that normally the Customs department does not keep the seized Indian currency in the Bank so as to earn interest. However, in this particular case he is not aware whether the seized currency has earned any interest.

Reasoning of judgment:- They have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both the sides. It has been observed in the Tribunal’s order dated 27-11-2000 that there is no evidence to show that the applicant had carried the said Indian currency from Nepal and the appellant’s explanation that he exchanged the said notes with his friend at Naxaulbari was held reasonable and acceptable. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief to the appellant. The applicant’s present grievance is that his request for release of the said Indian currency with interest has not evoked any response till date from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Siliguri.

From the record it is not clear whether the Indian currency involved in this case has actually earned interest. However, if the department has deposited the said amount in a bank and had earned interest therefrom, the applicant is entitled for the same when the seized amount is released to him in pursuance of the aforementioned Tribunal’s order dated 27-11-2000. The case law cited by him supports this view. Accordingly, they add one more paragraph in the Order No. A-1935/Cal/2000, dated 27-11-2000 [2001 (137)E.L.T.532 (T)], as under :-

“8. In view of the case law relied upon by the applicant, I direct that the amount of interest actually earned by the department, if any, shall be refunded to the applicant along with the Indian currency in question.”

The miscellaneous application is allowed in above terms.

Decision:- Miscellaneous application allowed.

Comment:- The analogy of the case is that if it is concluded that the Indian Currency was wrongly seized from the assessee, the assessee is entitled to claim the refund of Indian currency along with interest if revenue department had deposited the amount in bank and earned interest on the same.

Prepared by:- Monika Tak

Comments

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/2565

Post a Comment

Query