Commissioner of Customs Vs. Rishi Electronics Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs vs Rishi Electronics Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 07, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40705

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40705
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Nov 07, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Rishi Electronics Ltd.

Excerpt

1. according to the revenue, two errors apparent on the face of the record arise from tribunal's misc. order no. 65/05-nb, dated 28-3-2005 [2005 (186) e.l.t. 201 (tri. - del.)]; (1) in directing payment of interest after expiry of three months from 16-11-2000 which is the date of final order of the tribunal deciding the issue giving rise to the claim for refund.2. ld. dr submits that the language of section 27a makes it clear that interest is payable after the expirty of three months from the date on which application for refund is received and in the case such application came to be filed on 1-1-01 and therefore, interest would become payable from 2-4-01 i.e. after the expiry of three months from 1-1-01. he further submits that interest is to be paid at rates fixed by the central govt. and different rates for different periods were fixed as per different notifications rate of interest was 15% as per notification no. 36/2000 dated 12-5-2000 upto 10-5-01, 9% as per notification no. 21/02 dated 11-5-01 for the period 11-5-01 to 12-5-02, 8% as per notification no. 25/02 dt.13-5-02 upto 11-9-03 and 6% thereafter as per notification no. 75/03 dated 12-9-03 for the period 12-9-03 to 30-9-04 and thereafter.3. this contention is not opposed by ld. counsel for the respondents as it flows from the language of the statutory provisions.4. we, therefore, accept the plea made by the revenue and rectify the mistake in the order by directing payment of interest as per rates fixed by central govt. under the notifications set out above and direct payment of interest after the expiry of three months from the date of application i.e. after the expiry of three months from 1-1-01.

Full Judgment

1. According to the revenue, two errors apparent on the face of the record arise from Tribunal's Misc. order No. 65/05-NB, dated 28-3-2005 [2005 (186) E.L.T. 201 (Tri. - Del.)]; (1) In directing payment of interest after expiry of three months from 16-11-2000 which is the date of Final order of the Tribunal deciding the issue giving rise to the claim for refund.

2. Ld. DR submits that the language of Section 27A makes it clear that interest is payable after the expirty of three months from the date on which application for refund is received and in the case such application came to be filed on 1-1-01 and therefore, interest would become payable from 2-4-01 i.e. after the expiry of three months from 1-1-01. He further submits that interest is to be paid at rates fixed by the Central Govt. and different rates for different periods were fixed as per different notifications rate of interest was 15% as per notification No. 36/2000 dated 12-5-2000 upto 10-5-01, 9% as per Notification No. 21/02 dated 11-5-01 for the period 11-5-01 to 12-5-02, 8% as per Notification No. 25/02 dt.13-5-02 upto 11-9-03 and 6% thereafter as per Notification No. 75/03 dated 12-9-03 for the period 12-9-03 to 30-9-04 and thereafter.

3. This contention is not opposed by Ld. Counsel for the respondents as it flows from the language of the statutory provisions.

4. We, therefore, accept the plea made by the Revenue and rectify the mistake in the order by directing payment of interest as per rates fixed by Central Govt. under the notifications set out above and direct payment of interest after the expiry of three months from the date of application i.e. after the expiry of three months from 1-1-01.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Rishi Electronics Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, N T C.N.B.