B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.
(2.) The respondent-M/s Bangalore Wire Rod Mill imported a 'high reversible mill' in the year 1982. On November 11, 1982, he warehoused the said goods without paying duty as contemplated by Sections 58 and 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). On March 7, 1985, the authorities issued a notice to the respondents to clear the goods from the warehouse within fifteen days of the said notice after paying duty due thereon. The respondent, however, did not clear the goods until September 9, 1988 on which day he paid a duty of Rs. 1.40 crores and interest of Rs. 81.49 lakhs as demanded by the authorities. Having cleared the goods, the respondent filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court contending that levy of interest from November 11, 1983 up to the date of clearance of the goods from the warehouse and that too treating the rate of duty as ninety per cent is contrary to law and unsustainable. It asked for refund of excess amount of interest collected from it. Its case was that the initial warehousing period was for three years and, therefore, the interest, if at all, should be charged only for the period after the expiry of the said three years' period. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge against whose decision both the respondent and the Union of India filed writ appeals. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court disposed of the writ appeals with the following directions: "(a) The respondents are directed to re-compute the amount of interest payable by the petitioner at the prescribed rate with effect from 22-3-1985 up to 9-9-1988 on the basis of the amount of customs duty which the petitioner would have been liable to pay to the Central Government at the rate, which was prevailing during the different periods between 22-3-1985 to 9-9-1988; (b) After computing the total of interest payable for the entire period as directed above, the respondents shall refund the balance of the amount of interest collected from the petitioner."
(3.) The judgment of the Division Bench is being questioned both by the Union of India and by the importer in these appeals.;