Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Plastrulon Processors Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Mumbai II

2016 (12) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Demand - goods manufactured in bonded warehouse - relinquishment of the title of goods - Held that: - the issue in the instant appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (8) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT, BANGALORE], where Department contended that respondent company liable to pay the duty along with interest and penalty on the ground that goods have outlived the warehousing period – Held that department content .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hich it comes to end is the date relevant for determining the rate of duty. When the duty is, in fact, demanded is not relevant. - The appellants have a right to relinquish the goods. However, the interest can be recovered from the date of warehousing of the goods left in the warehouse to the date of relinquishing of the title by the appellants. Rate of duty for calculation of interest would be determined in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon - ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n duty was demanded on the balance goods which were not cleared by the appellant. The said notice was confirmed by the lower authority without granting an opportunity for hearing. The matter was agitated by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the matter back to the lower authority by following observation:- 4(iii) According to the provisions of Section 15, the rate of duty applicable in the goods cleared from the warehouse is not that payable on the date on which the goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

efore passing the order. 2. The lower authority in the remand proceedings confirmed the entire duty demand of ₹ 1,78,884/-. In the said order while confirming the demand, the original adjudicating authority rejected the request of the appellant to relinquish the title of the goods. The appellant challenged the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the original adjudicating authority by relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon - 1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

order dated 27.10.1998 had granted them relief in respect of interest and had quantified the duty to ₹ 91,013/- only. The said order was not challenged by Revenue and, therefore, in the second proceedings they cannot take a different view. 4. Learned A.R. relied on the impugned order. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the records. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was dealing with the fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on the expiry of the period permitted under Section 61(1)(a) or the extended period under the proviso thereto? (ii) Whether the respondent Company became liable to pay, with respect to warehouse goods, as provided under Section 72(1)(a) of the Act the full amount of duty chargeable together with all penalties and interest by reason of allowing the said goods to remain in the warehouse after the expiration of the warehousing period permitted under Section 61(1)(a) or extended under proviso to Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l of warehoused goods from the warehouse in the context of determining the date to be considered for quantifying the customs duty on the warehoused goods at the time of their clearance from the warehouse, observed at para 14 of the judgment in Kesorams s case that : The provisions of Section 68 and, consequently, of Section 15(l)(b) apply only when goods have been cleared from the warehouse within the permitted period or its permitted extension and not when, by reason of their remaining in the w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said goods and consequently becomes liable to pay full amount of duly chargeable on such goods together with all penalties and interest. On a plain reading of the provisions of Sections 23(2), 47, 68 and the proviso to Section 68, it is clear that the owner of any warehoused goods has right to relinquish his title to such goods at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption has been made in respect thereto . There is no prohibition for the owner of the goods to exercise .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re, we are of the considered view that by virtue of proviso to Section 68 and the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, the respondent-Company herein had right to relinquish its title to the said goods even after expiry of the warehousing period and as such, the relinquishment of his title to the said goods by addressing his letter dated 3-9-2003 before the Commissioner of Customs proceeded against the respondent-Company under Section 72(2) of the Act by issuing show cause notice proposing to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version