Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (8) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of warehousing period by the proper authority. Held that:- In the peculiar facts of this case, even though the licensing period was expired nothing prevented the appellant to pay the duty and clear the goods, if they are really very serious to avoid the payment of interest. It is also the fact that the appellant avoided the payment of Customs duty till the clearance of the goods, therefore the interest chargeable to the warehouse goods after expiry of one year is inevitable. Therefore the interest paid by the appellant under any circumstances is not refundable. - Decided against the assessee. - Appeal No. C/414/2005 - A/88879/16/CB - Dated:- 21-7-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... otest by them was liable to be refunded to them. The adjudicating authority however issued a show cause notice to the appellant and against it, the appellant filed the Writ Petition NO. 6221/2000, in the Mumbai High Court. The Mumbai High Court vide its order dated 24.11.2000, rejected the said Writ Petition, thereafter the adjudicating authority rejected all refund claims. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), with a prayer that no interest was chargeable from the appellants for the period from the expiry of the initial warehousing period of one year till 15.09.1997, hence no interest was chargeable from the appellants for the period from 19.5.1998 to 14.6.1999 when the EPCG .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the goods under EPCG thereafter the appellant has requested for extension of warehousing on 10.8.1996 for the period of six months upto 5.3.1997. The requests of extension were rejected and the warehousing licence has been cancelled. The appellant obtained a fresh EPCG licence on 19.5.1998 thereafter the Chief Commissioner, on the direction of the Tribunal, extended warehousing period upto 31.12.1999. The goods were cleared on EPCG Licence during 14.12.1999 to 28.3.2001. In this fact, we find that even though the extension of warehousing was rejected by the Commissioner, the appellant was not in a position to clear the goods as they were not having EPCG Licence during the period. Secondly, whatsoever reason for delay in clearance of the g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nefit of EPCG scheme as per which duty on the consignment was leviable at Nil rate. The Adjudicating Authority also observed that for want of execution of Bank Guarantee as required under EPCG scheme/licence. they were not in a position to clear the goods and so they applied for extension of bond period and therefore according to the Adjudicating Authority this act on the part of the appellants was not liable to be held as seeking clearance of warehoused goods during the currency of EPCG licence allowing Nil rate of duty and hence was not accepted by the him, The Adjudicating Authority also held that the appellant after importing the goods were not in a position to avail benefit of Nil duty allowable as per EPCG licence issued to them and a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Wire Rods Mills Vs. Union of India (1992 (61) ELT 37 (Kar)}. The appellants have also contended that another period for which they have sought relief from interest payment is from 29.5_1998, when the EPCG licence against which all the 22 clearances were made and ends on 14.6.1999, when the appellants received a letter from the Department saying that the Commissioner of Customs and the Chief Commissioner of Customs Pune, had extended the validity of the appellants open bonded warehousing licence up to 31.12.1999. In this context, I find that the Mumbai High Court's order dated 21.11.2000/24.11.2000, reads as under, In this matter the warehousing licence was renewed by the department. It was not a new licence petitioner themselve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates