Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Isolux Corsan India Engineering And ... vs Lucknow Prev on 27 February, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I
Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.185-Cus/Appl/LKO/2024 dated 31/05/2024
passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax,
Lucknow)
M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering And
Construction Pvt. Ltd., .....Appellant
(2163, Shri Nagar Colony,
Yamunanagar, Haryana-135003)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs (Pre.), Lucknow ....Respondent
(7-A, Ashok Marg, Hazaratganj, Lucknow) APPEARANCE:
Ms Nivedita Chauhan, Advocate, Ms. Archisha Singh, Advocate & Ms Komal Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER NO.70092/2025 DATE OF HEARING : 24 September, 2024 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 February, 2025 SANJIV SRIVASTAVA:
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.185- Cus/Appl/LKO/2024 dated 31/05/2024 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. By the impugned order following has been held:-
"ORDER I dismiss the appeal filed by the appellant and accordingly no interest or compensation is payable against the refund amount in question."
2.1 In the present case appellant is a resolution/professional official liquidator appointed by the concern Court/Tribunal.
Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 2 2.2 The company under liquidation M/s Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd. had filed a refund claim, claiming refund of SAD paid with reference to certain imports carried out through Bills of Entry No.7880381 and 7880383 both dated 02.01.2015, in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007, on 07.01.2016.
2.3 A deficiency memo was issued against the said refund claim. In the mean time, the said company went into insolvency before the NCLT. The claim was resubmitted by the Insolvency Resolution Professional on 10.10.2019 and was duly sanctioned on 09.01.2020. However, due to certain problems with account details provided by the beneficiary, the amount could not be transferred to the account of beneficiary. Several attempts made by the revenue authorities to reach out the recipient. Subsequently, Shri Rajiv Bansal was appointed Liquidator for Corporate Debtor by NCLT and hence the amount was sought to be transferred to him instead of Shri Vikram Kumar for which revenue sought clarification from Shri Vikram Kumar vide letter dated 23.10.2020.
2.4 Shri Vikram Kumar vide mail dated 26.12.2020 confirmed that Shri Rajiv Bansal has been appointed as official liquidator and vide letter dated 13.09.2022 bank details were called from Shri Rajiv Bansal.
2.5 Upon receiving the bank details amount was transferred to the account on 28.09.2022 without any interest due. Aggrieved appellant have filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) seeking interest for the period of delay in crediting the amount to the account of applicant in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal as per the impugned order referred in para-1 above.
2.8 Aggrieved appellant have filed this appeal. 3.1 We have heard Ms Nivedita Chauhan, Ms. Archisha Singh & Ms Komal Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Santosh Kumar learned Authorised Representative appearing for the revenue.
3.2 Arguing for the appellant learned Counsel submit that-
Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 3 There is delay in crediting the amount of refund claim to the account of the beneficiary in terms of Section 27A interest @15% should be paid for the period of delay. Relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs M/s B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd. order dated 05.02.2024 in Civil Appeal No.7238 of 2009. 3.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities.
4.1 We have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument.
4.2 For rejecting the claim of interest made by the appellant, impugned order records as follows:-
"5.1 I have carefully gone through the case records, submissions of the appellant and the grounds of appeal and find that in the present case, the issues to be decided are -
(i) Whether interest is payable to the appellant under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962?
(ii) Whether any compensation on account of the delay in credit of the refund amount in appellant's account, is payable?
Now I proceed to discuss the above points one by one:
(i) Whether interest is payable to the appellant under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962?
Let us first look at the legal provision in this regard Section 27A: Interest on delayed refunds - If any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of section 27 to an applicant is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of that section, there shall be paid to that applicant interest at such rate [not below five percent] and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government the Notification in the Official Gazette] on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 4 three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty:
A reading of the above provision implies that interest liability would occur only when the amount is not refunded within a period of 03 months However, refund is a process that comprises claiming refund, its processing, sanction and transfer into a designated bank account. Until sanction of the refund amount and issuance of funds for making payment of the refund amount, the process and resources are within the control of the department. But once the funds have been issued by the department, the process goes in the hands of the banks (sender and receiver). The correctness of the account details submitted by the recipient of the refund amount also plays an important role in the process If the account details are not proper or due to some other problem the amount doesn't get transferred to the beneficiary account, there is hardly anything the department can do about it. Department can only request the refund seeker to either check the details and rectify the mistake, if any, or provide any other account for transfer of money Until an active or proper recipient account is not available, there is no way the funds could be transferred, even if the amount has been sanctioned and funds have been allocated. In the instant case, the refund was sanctioned on 09.01.2020 vis-à-vis 10.10.2019, the date of filing of the refund claim, te. within 03 months of filing. But when the funds were attempted to be transferred (in the account specified by the refund seeker) the process failed. Thereafter a communication dated 13.02.2020 was sent to the refund seeker (Shri Vikram Kumar) informing him of the issue being faced but nothing was heard from him for months together. Subsequently, on 24.06.2020 the department received letter dated 18.05.2020 from Shri Rajiv Bansal, Liquidator giving details of an account and claiming the said refund amount. However, since the amount involved was huge, the department thought it proper to first seek clarification from Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 5 Shri Vikram Kumar about the credentials of Shri Rajiv Bansal Confirmation came from Shri Vikram Kumar and once again account details were called from Shri Bansal But this time also the amount could not get transferred. Then Shri Bansal submitted details of another bank account (Yes Bank) vide his letter dated 13.09.2022, into which the refund amount got credited.
it is discernible from the entire set of events mentioned above that there was although no delay in sanctioning the amount of refund, the delay in transfer of the same to the account of the recipients was due to the malfunction of the banking system. Had the bank account details been proper or had the banking system been working properly (wherever the problem existed), the refund amount would have got transferred to the seeker in the first attempt itself. It did not happen due to glitch of the system or account details being incorrect. In both the scenarios, the department has no role or control. Department's intentions have never been wrong. The second bank account details provided also didn't work The amount got transferred only when the third account was provided. Long time gaps between the dates of dispatch of letters by the department seeking important information and receipt of a reply from the appellant's side is also clearly visible. I therefore, do not find any merit in the claim of interest on refund amount made by the appellant in terms of provisions of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. Provisions of law cannot be seen in isolation. The circumstances leading to the situation must also be considered and relied upon.
(ii) Whether any compensation on account of the delay in credit of the refund amount in appellant's account, is payable?
This question is indirectly linked to the first question in as much as, had the findings relating to the Question (i) been against the department, further analysis of the subject matter was required. Now that it has been found out that whatever delay has occurred in transfer of money to beneficiary Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 6 account had been due to glitch of the system or the account details being incorrect Hence, no fault appears to have been committed by the department. Therefore, no compensation is necessary."
4.3 We find that the claim of the appellant that interest @15% should be admissible is based upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred by the Counsel during the course of argument. In the said decision following has been held:-
"24. At this stage, we may mention that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27A of the Customs Act, the Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued notification bearing No.32/1995 (NT)-Customs dated 26.05.1995 fixing the rate of interest at fifteen percent for the purposes of Section 27A of the Customs Act. This was notified by the Central Government in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in the Official Gazette of India dated 26.05.1995.
25. Likewise, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act, the Central Board of Excise and Customs issued notification No.22/95-Central Excises (NT) dated 29.05.1995 fixing the rate of interest at fifteen percent per annum for the purposes of the said section. This was also notified by the Central Government in the Official Gazette of India on 29.05.1995.
26. Though it may not be necessary, still we may refer to the circulars dated 20.08.1998 and 05.12.2000 issued by the DGFT. Circular dated 20.08.1998 says that representations had been received from individual exporters as well as clarifications sought for by different regional licencing authorities with regard to availability of deemed export benefit for supply of goods and services to civil construction projects. Circular dated 20.08.1998 says that the issue as to whether supply of goods and services to civil construction projects would be entitled for deemed export benefit or not had been examined in detail, whereafter it was clarified that supply of goods under Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 7 paragraph 10(2)(d) of the Exim Policy would be entitled to deemed export benefit. Therefore, if within the scope of a work of turn-key civil construction project, supply of goods is included then supply of such goods would be entitled to deemed export benefit.
26.1. It appears that representations were continued to be received by the DGFT regarding admissibility of duty drawback on supplies made to turn-key projects, considered as deemed export in terms of the Exim Policy. Circular dated 05.12.2000 mentions that the matter was deliberated upon by the Policy Review Committee. It was noted that it was not possible for a single contractor to manufacture himself all the items required for execution of such projects. Hence certain items, either imported or indigenous, had necessarily to be procured from other sources. It was, therefore, clarified that all such directly supplied items, whether imported or indigenous, and used in the projects, the condition „manufactured in India‟, a pre-requisite for grant of deemed export benefit, was satisfied in view of the fact that such activities being undertaken at the project site constituted „manufacture‟ as per the definition provided in the Exim Policy. Accordingly, it was clarified that the duties, customs and central excise, suffered on such goods should be refunded through the duty drawback route. Referring to the previous circular dated 20.08.1998, it was further clarified that excise duty paid on supply of inputs, such as, cement, steel etc., would be refunded through the duty drawback route in the same manner as in any other case of excisable goods being supplied to any other project qualifying for deemed export benefit, subject to the project authority certifying the receipt and use of such inputs in the project.
27. As already noted above, a Policy Interpretation Committee was constituted. The said committee held a meeting on 07.10.2002, chaired by the DGFT. One of the agenda items deliberated upon in the said meeting was the Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 8 claim of the respondent regarding inclusion of excise duty component in the price quoted before the project authority as a case of deemed export and refund of the same through the duty drawback route. The Policy Interpretation Committee discussed the case of the respondent and opined that in case any such firms were still competitive and able to supply goods at international prices despite including the component of excise duty in the price quoted before the project authority, the deemed export benefit could not be denied to such firms. Hence, the committee decided to permit deemed export benefit even in cases where the excise duty component was factored in the pricing quoted provided other conditions of deemed export benefit were adhered to.
27.1. From a perusal of the minutes of the meeting of the Policy Interpretation Committee held on 07.10.2002, it is evident that the committee had opined to extend the deemed export benefit to those firms which included excise duty component in the tender pricing quoted before the project authority such as the respondent. There is nothing in the minutes to indicate that such benefit was being extended to the respondent as a one off case or by way of concession.
28. Based on the minutes of the Policy Interpretation Committee meeting held on 07.10.2002, DGFT issued letter dated 01.11.2002, a copy of which was marked to the respondent, superseding the previous rejection order dated 21.06.2002 and allowing duty drawback to be paid to the respondent for materials/goods, such as, steel, cement etc., used in the civil works of Koyna Hydro Electric Project. The amount of drawback refundable to the respondent was quantified at Rs.2,05,79,740.00. In the said letter, it was, however, mentioned that grant of drawback should not be treated as a precedent. It was thereafter that cheques were issued paying the aforesaid amount of duty drawback to the respondent. At that stage, Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 9 respondent submitted representations contending that there was delay in the refund of drawback and therefore, it was entitled to interest from the relevant date at the rate of fifteen percent in terms of the notification No.22/95 dated 29.05.1995 (we may mention that the respondent had placed reliance on the aforesaid notification which fixed interest at the rate of fifteen percent for delayed refund of duty under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act). However, such representations were rejected by the DGFT on 10.07.2003 and 06.08.2003 respectfully. In the rejection letter dated 10.07.2003, respondent was informed by the office of DGFT that there was no 24 provision for payment of interest on the deemed export duty drawback. Therefore, the request for payment of interest could not be agreed upon.
29. Learned Single Judge referred to the circular dated
05.12.2000 and observed that pursuant thereto appellants had paid the duty drawback to the respondent. However, there was delay in payment of duty drawback at least from the date of the clarificatory circular dated 05.12.2000. Therefore, respondent would be entitled to interest from the date of the clarification till the date of payment. After observing that the Customs Act provides for interest on delayed refund within the range from five percent to thirty percent, learned Single Judge directed the appellants to pay interest on the delayed refund from the date of the clarificatory circular dated 05.12.2000 till the date of payment within a period of three months.
30. Appellants filed Writ Appeal No.356 of 2006 assailing the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge. On the other hand, respondent also filed a writ appeal being Writ Appeal No.3699 of 2005 assailing the directions of the learned Single Judge to pay interest only from the date of the circular dated 05.12.2000.
30.1 Before the Division Bench, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that it was only under the Foreign Trade Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 10 Policy, 2004-2009 that for the first time payment of simple interest at the rate of six percent per annum in the event of delay in refund of duty drawback was provided. There was no provision for payment of interest on delayed refund of duty drawback on deemed export prior thereto. Therefore, respondent was not entitled to interest even from 05.12.2000 as directed by the learned Single Judge. It was canvassed before the Division Bench on behalf of the appellants that only due to magnanimity on the part of the Central Government refund of duty drawback under deemed export was paid to the respondent. As such, refund would not carry any interest.
30.2 The Division Bench repelled such contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants and held that in view of the circular dated 05.12.2000, it was clarified that even civil construction works were entitled to the benefit of deemed export under the Exim Policy. After saying so, the Division Bench noted that as a matter of fact, an amount of Rs.2,05,79,740.00 was paid to the respondent as duty drawback. Thereafter, the Division Bench analysed the circular dated 05.12.2000 and upon such analysis it was observed 26 that the position vis-à-vis refund of duty drawback in civil construction work treating it as deemed export was clarified in an earlier circular dated 20.08.1998. Thus, according to the Division Bench, by the year 1998 itself, DGFT had clarified that civil construction work was entitled to the benefit of duty drawback as deemed export. Having held so, the Division Bench posed a question as to whether the respondent would be entitled to interest after expiry of three months from the date of the applications for refund of duty drawback? Corollary to the above question was an ancillary question as to whether a clarificatory or declaratory notification or circular would have retrospective operation? After referring to decisions of this Court reported in 1993 Supplementary (3) SCC 234 S. S. Grewal versus State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 630 Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 11 Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Padmini Chandrasekharan (dead) by Lrs., and (2004) 8 SCC 1 Zile Singh versus State of Haryana, the Division Bench opined that the minute the Exim Policy came into force the benefit of duty drawback automatically became available to the respondent and that the clarification was only with regard to the doubts expressed in some quarters as to whether civil construction works were also entitled to such benefit. By virtue of the two circulars dated 20.08.1998 and 05.12.2000, no new right or benefit came to be created; those two circulars were clarificatory in nature only clarifying that the benefit under the Exim Policy 1992-1997 was available to civil construction as well. Therefore, such benefit would take effect from the date of the Exim Policy. It was thereafter that the Division Bench posed the further question as to what would be the rate of interest on the delayed refund. In this connection, the Division Bench referred to Sections 27A and 75A of the Customs Act and came to the conclusion that the date of payment of interest would have to be on expiry of the period of three months from the date of making an application for refund of duty drawback. The Division Bench held that the respondent would be entitled to interest from the date of expiry of three months after submission of applications for refund back in the year 1996 till the time the payment was made at the rate of fifteen percent as awarded by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal of the appellants was dismissed while the appeal of the respondent was allowed.
31. Reverting back to the Exim Policy of 1992-1997, we have already noted about the Duty Exemption Scheme. We have noted that under the Duty Exemption Scheme, import of duty free raw materials, components, intermediates, consumables, parts, spares including mandatory spares and packing materials 28 required for the purpose of export production could be permitted by the Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 12 competent authority under five categories of licences mentioned in Chapter VII including special imprest licence. Section 56 provided that a special imprest licence was granted for the duty free import of raw materials, components, consumables, parts, spares including mandatory spares and packing materials to main/sub- contractors for the manufacture or supply of products when such supply were made to projects financed by multilateral or bilateral agencies, such as, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development under international competitive bidding or under limited tender system.
31.1 In Chapter X „deemed export‟ has been defined. It is a transaction in which the goods supplied do not leave the country and the payment for the goods is received by the supplier in Indian rupees, but the supplies earn or save foreign exchange for the country. Section 121 declares that the categories of supply of goods mentioned in the said section would be regarded as „deemed export‟ under the Exim Policy provided the goods were manufactured in India and the payment was received in Indian rupees. This included supply of goods to projects financed by multilateral or bilateral agencies or any other agency that may be notified by the Central Government, such as, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development under international competitive bidding or under limited tender system in accordance with the procedures of those agencies.
31.2 Section 122 clarifies that deemed export would be eligible for benefits under the Duty Drawback Scheme in respect of manufacture and supply of goods by treating those as deemed export.
32. That apart, as already mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement, the Explanation below sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act clarifies that the expression „the date of payment of duty or interest‟ in relation to a Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 13 person other than an importer shall be construed as „the date of purchase of goods‟ by such person.
33. Therefore, on a conjoint and careful reading of the relevant provisions of the Exim Policy, 1992-1997 in conjunction with the Central Excise Act and the Customs Act, it is evident that supply of goods to the project in question by the respondent was a case of „deemed export‟ and thus entitled to the benefit under the Duty Drawback Scheme. The language employed in the policy made this very clear and there was no ambiguity in respect of such entitlement.
34. Even if there was any doubt, the same was fully explained by the 1995 Rules. In fact, under the definition clause of the 1995 Rules, duty drawback, in relation to any goods manufactured in India and exported has been defined to mean the rebate of duty or tax chargeable on any imported materials or excisable materials used or taxable services used in the manufacture of such goods. In the preceding paragraphs, we have noted the meaning of the expressions „excisable materials‟ and „manufacture‟. 34.1 Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules makes it abundantly clear that a drawback may be allowed on the export of goods at such amount or at such rates as may be determined by the Central Government. Further, Rule 14 provides for payment of drawback and interest.
35. It was, therefore, not correct on the part of the appellants to contend that there was no provision for payment of interest on delayed refund of duty drawback. That apart, it is wholly untenable for the appellants to contend that refund of duty drawback was granted to the respondent as a concession, not to be treated as a precedent. As we have seen, respondent is entitled to refund of duty drawback as a deemed export under the Duty Drawback Scheme. The applications for refund were made in 1996. Decision to grant refund of duty drawback was taken Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 14 belatedly on 07.10.2002 whereafter 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.
36. As we have already examined, 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. This section provides that the interest would be 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. If we look at 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.
37. The Central Board of Excise and Customs vide its notification bearing No.32/1995 (NT) - Customs dated 26.5.1995 had fixed the rate of interest at fifteen percent for the purpose of Section 27A of the Customs Act. The High Court while awarding interest at the rate of fifteen percent per annum, however, did not refer to such notification; rather, there was no discussion at all as to why the rate of interest on the delayed refund should be fifteen percent. Therefore, at the first glance, the rate of interest awarded by the High Court appeared to be on the higher side and without any reason.
38. Be that as it may, having regard to our discussions made above, we have no hesitation in holding that the respondent was entitled to refund of duty drawback. Appellants had belatedly accepted the said claim and made the refund. Since there was belated refund of the duty drawback to the respondent, it was entitled to interest at the rate Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 15 which was fixed by the Central Government at the relevant point of time being fifteen percent." 4.4 We find at the relevant time by Notification No.75/2003- Cus(N.T.) dated 12.09.2003 interest rate of 6% has been prescribed. The text of the said notification is reproduced bellow:-
"Notification under Section 27A Interest @ 6% per annum for delayed refund-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 25/2002-Customs (N.T.), dated 13th May, 2002 [GSR 356(E), dated 13th May, 2002], except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby fixes the rate of interest at six per cent per annum for the purposes of the said section."
4.5 In terms of the said notification along with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, the interest is prescribed @6% would only be admissible to the appellant for the period of delay.
4.6 We also note that interest paid under physical statute are compensatory in nature but is statutory prescribed for any delay in refunding the amounts due to the appellant. In the case of M/s RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. Vs M/s UNION OF INDIA 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 16 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application to be submitted under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act, then the applicant shall be paid interest at such rate, as may be fixed by the Central Government, on expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. The Explanation appearing below Proviso to Section 11BB introduces a deeming fiction that where the order for refund of duty is not made by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payable on the expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of Section 11B of the Act and that the said Explanation does not have any bearing or connection with the date from which interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable.
10. It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 17 Ajmera Housing Corporation & Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739]."
4.7 In view of the above decision, we do not find any merit in the impugned order, rejecting the claim of interest made by the appellant for the delay in crediting the amount to the account of beneficiary.
4.8 As the entire delay has been on the account of the dispute between the Resolution Professional earlier appointed in the matter and the Official Liquidator appointed subsequently, we are in agreement with the findings recorded in the impugned order to the effect that appellant is not entitled to any compensation. Compensation claimed would also not be admissible under Customs Act,1962 as the statute do not provide for any such compensation to be paid in any manner. Commissioner (Appeals) nor this Tribunal, being creature of Customs Act, 1962, can grant any compensation as claimed by the appellant. In case of Singh Enterprises [2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)] Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
"8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the „Limitation Act‟) can be availed for condonation of delay. The first proviso to Section 35 makes the position clear that the appeal has to be preferred within three months from the date of communication to him of the decision or order. However, if the Commissioner is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of 60 days, he can allow it to be presented within a further period of 30 days. In other words, this clearly shows that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days but in terms of the proviso further 30 days Customs Appeal No.70540 of 2024 18 time can be granted by the appellate authority to entertain the appeal. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days which is the normal period for preferring appeal. Therefore, there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period."
5.1 Appeal is partially allowed. Appellant should be paid interest as prescribed under Notification No. 25/2003-Cus(N.T.) dated 21.09.2003 to the appellant for the period of delay in crediting the amount to his account.
(Order pronounced in open court on-27 February, 2025) (P.K. CHOUDHARY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (SANJIV SRIVASTAVA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) akp