TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessary bond. The cleared the goods through various Bills of Entry from the warehouse during the period Jan. to Feb. 2004 after paying the duty along with the interest. The interest was paid by them for having kept the goods in the warehouse for a period of more than 30 days as prescribed under Section 61 of the Customs Act as amended vide Notification No. 23/2001-Cus. (N.T.) dated 22-5-2001. Thereafter, they lodged the claim for the refund of the interest on the ground that same was not payable by them as when they warehoused the goods, the period prescribed was six months during which they were required to remove the goods from the warehouse. 3. Shri H.C. Verma, ld. JDR has contended that since the period of retention of the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, this stand cannot be allowed to be taken by the Revenue. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone though the record. 6. From the record, we find that when the provisions of Section 61 of the Customs Act reducing the warehoused period of the goods from six months to 30 days through the Notification dated 22-5-2001 w.e.f. 1-6-2001 were amended, the goods of the respondents were still laying in the warehouse. The duty and the other charges were to be paid at the time of the clearance of the goods. The amended period was applicable to them and this position was also made clear to them by the CBEC vide letter dated 11-10-2001. It is not the case of the respondents that this letter did not come to their notice. They never disputed the corr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ld. JDR that without challenging assessment orders passed on their Bills of Entries, no refund claims could be lodged by the respondents, in our view, deserves to be accepted. In the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has clearly ruled that where an appealable order has been passed under the Statute and the party aggrieved did not choose to exercise the statutory right of filing an appeal, it would be not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund. The respondents, as observed above, did not challenge the assessment orders passed on the Bills of Entries, which were appealable orders and as such, their refund claims for the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
