9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 34 & 35/2006. by raising the following questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in its view in the interpretation of Sec. 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1961 and holding that the conditions was therein were fulfilled? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in its view in holding that the action of the authorities was based on revenue bias? (iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that there is nothing in the law which says that remission of duty is not permissible when the remission application is filed after the expiry of the warehousing period? (iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding under the circumstances, demanding duty on destroyed goods before clearing from the ware house would be very harsh. Which is contrary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... letter dated 1-2-2002, to which the respondent had responded by con tending that show cause notice has to be issued. Thereafter show cause notice dated 14-2-2002 was also issued to the respondent claiming duty and interest and penalty. Since remission of duty had been rejected, the said notice was replied to by the respondent. Thereafter the matter was adjudicated and an order-in- original was passed on 11-3-2002 imposing duty and penalty along with interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Com missioner of Customs, (Appeals), Bangalore, which was dismissed on 21-7-2003. The said matter was carried in Appeal before the CESTAT, which by its order dated 30-9-2005 allowed the appeal. Thereafter, an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the warehouse at the time of filing the said application and that at no point of time the goods were removed and that during the period when the goods were in the warehouse they were destroyed and therefore the provision of Section 23 was squarely applicable and that the authorities were not right in rejecting the application that till today the goods are not being cleared from the warehouse and therefore under the circumstances mentioned in Section 23 of the Act, the respondent is entitled to re mission of duty. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. i2 Technologies Software Private Ltd. reported in 2007 (217) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.) in support of his submission. 6. Having heard the counsel on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the date of its import. It is also not in dispute that the said goods have not been cleared by the respondent after paying the requisite customs duty. However, the extension sought for continuing in the warehouse was granted by the authorities but even after the expiry of the said date, the goods were not removed from the warehouse. Section 23 of the Act states that only when the imported goods have been lost or destroyed at any time before clearance for home consumption, the application for remission of duty can be considered and that even before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption is made, relinquishing of title to the goods can be made, in such event also an importer would not be liable to pay duty. Therefore the expr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
