Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (12) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (12) TMI 375 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - 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 warehou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erms 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 interest would be determined in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supre .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and Notice was issued on 25.02.1998 wherein 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tion 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 A .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o relinquish title to the warehoused goods 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 Sectio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d (2) of the Act as to the improper removal 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 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

his right to relinquish his title to the 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 prohibiti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty and the penalty does not arise. Therefore, 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version