TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 681X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2013 (3) TMI 29 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where it was held that initial inaction on part of the customs authorities for four years before the petition was filed by itself must be seen as unreasonable delay on their part - demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/91/2009-DB - Final Order No. A/ 10957 /2018 - Dated:- 15-2-2018 - Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Mr. P.P. Jadeja (Consultant) For the Respondent : Mr. L. Patra (A.R.) ORDER Per : Dr. D.M. Misra This appeal is filed against order-in-original No. 75/Commr./2008 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad-III. 2. Briefly stated the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 91, since warehouse period was renewed upto 16.02.1991 and the SCN was issued on 29.06.1995 i.e. after approximately 41/2 years hence barred by limitation. In support he has referred to the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Raj Exports vs Central Warehousing Corporation 2013 (287) ELT 166 (Guj.). 4. Per contra, Ld. AR for the Revenue has submitted that limitation prescribed under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable to the appellant s case since they have executed a bond to make good of the duty foregone under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962, and therefore, the period of limitation prescribed is not applicable to them. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the Commissioner is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant provisions. As noted earlier, Section 61 pertains to period for which goods may remain warehoused. Sub-section (1) of Section 61 provides for different time frame up to which the goods may remain warehoused. The present case falls under clause (b) thereof namely, in case of other goods wherein the time-limit provided is one year. Section 72, as noted, pertains to goods improperly removed from warehouse etc. Sub-section (1) thereof provides for instances where the proper officer may demand the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with penalties, rent, interest and other charges payable in respect of such goods. Such instances are - (a) where any warehoused goods are removed in contravention of secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he goods were destroyed after the petitioners liability to pay duty thereon in terms of section 72(1) crystallized. Once the duty liability was crystallized, the destruction of the goods thereafter would make no difference. Sub-section (1) of Section 23 pertains to duty remission when the goods have been lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption. As noted, Section 72 of the Act governs cases of collection of duty upon the events other than clearance of goods for home consumption. Once, therefore, we find that upon happening of the events envisaged under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 72 of the Act, the liability of the petitioners to pay duty on the goods arose, any subsequent event such as loss or destruction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of due deference to the court in view of pending disputes, the Department did not issue the show-cause notice. In any case, there was no stay against issuance of show-cause notice or even against recovery of the duty. Quite apart from total inaction on part of the respondents to issue such a notice during the pendency of the petition, four years had passed before the petition was filed. During such period no steps were taken at all. 23. Section 28 of the Customs Act provides for the limitation of one year for collection of unpaid duty unless it is occasioned due to reasons of collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts in which case extended period of limitation of five years would be available. In this case, even if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
