- (1.) This appeal was against the judgment and/or order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 16th September, 2009 by which relief, as prayed for, was granted to the petitioner.
(2.) The short fact, which arises for consideration, is set out hereunder: The writ petitioners-respondents filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1778 of 2000 on 19th July, 2000 challenging show cause notice for short levy in respect of five consignment of KHS-68. During pendency of this writ petition anti dumping duty was imposed on the said imported materials. So another writ petition being W.P. No. 2772 of 2001 was filed challenging the said order imposing duty, in or about 2001. The said writ petition [hereinafter referred to as the "earlier writ petition"] was admitted by the learned Single Judge of this Court and stay was granted on condition that the writ petitioners-respondents would deposit the entire amount of the anti dumping duty so assessed by the customs authorities and the same should be kept deposited with the learned Advocate on Record for the Central Government. The writ petition thereafter was heard by the learned Single Judge, and it resulted in dismissal on 29th January, 2002 , [2002 (142) E.L.T. 549 (Cal.)]. The writ petitioners-respondents preferred appeal against the order of dismissal and while admitting the appeal, the Division Bench of this Court presided over by Samaresh Banerjea, J. [as His Lordship then was] and P.N. Sinha, J. [as His Lordship then was] passed an interim order dated 17th May, 2002 directing the appellant to make payment of the entire anti dumping duty to the respondents with the rider that in the event the writ petitioners succeeded, the entire amount, so paid, should be refunded with interest at the rate prevailing in the bank. In terms of the said two interim orders the writ petitioner/respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 42,77,418/-. Ultimately, the said appeal was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court and the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside and held that the writ petitioners-respondents are not liable to pay anti dumping duty. Therefore, an order was passed allowing the writ petitioners-respondents to make an application for refund with interest.
(3.) The said application though filed by the writ petitioners/respondents was not disposed of and as such contempt proceedings was initiated and only then principal amount of the duty deposited was refunded but the interest was neither computed nor paid. The Division Bench, while disposing of the contempt application, granted liberty to the writ petitioners/respondents to make an application for payment of interest and the respondent/appellant to consider the same.;