TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purposes of interest. We find that the matter has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon [1996 (8) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that The consequence of non-removal of warehoused goods within the permitted period or the permitted extension is, by virtue of the terms of Section 72, certain. The date on which 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 intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as, therefore, incumbent on the part of the Asstt. Commr. to give not only an opportunity for representation but also an opportunity for hearing before 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 - 1996 (86) 464 (S.C.). Aggrieved by the said order the appellants are before the Tribunal. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Section 61(1), despite the company intimating the Customs Department in writing the relinquishment of its title to the said goods in terms of Sections 23(2) and 68 of the said Act ? 5.1 After examining the issue in detail, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka answered the said question by obser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods 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 his right to relinquish his title to such goods after the expiration of the warehousing period or after expiration of the extended period. Further, the provisions of Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 68 make it clear that upon relinquishment of his title to any imported goods, including the warehoused goods, the owner of such goods shall not be liable to pay duty thereon. When he is not liable to pay duty, the question of paying any interest on the duty and the penalty does not arise. Therefore, we are of the considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of Karnataka in the case of i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 5.3 The 2nd issue which arises is the quantification of the demand for the purposes of interest. We find that the matter has been clarified by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon (supra) as follows:- 17 . The consequence of non-removal of warehoused goods within the permitted period or the permitted extension is, by virtue of the terms of Section 72, certain. The date on which 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 alternative submission on behalf of the appellants must, therefore, also be rejected. 5.4 In the light of the above decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
