Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (8) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... abandoned the goods when their application for extension of warehousing period was still subsisting and hence question of paying duty, interest and penalty does not arise. It is seen from the judgment of CCE v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd.[ 1999 (12) TMI 280 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] and Mafatlal fine Spinning Mills [ 1986 (12) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] that the demand of duty is invalid when importer relinquishes his title to ownership of goods before the order of clearance for home consumption is passed, even if the warehousing period has expired. As the appellants have abandoned the goods on 3-9-03 even before the issuance of an order for home clearance was made or demands raised in the show cause notice, therefore in terms of these .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssioner. The department had sought details of goods in working and non-working condition and the same had been submitted to the department by the appellant on 1-9-03. On 1-9-03 the Commissioner informed the appellants to pay duty on the goods in non-working condition under Section 72 of the Customs Act. Appellants on 3-9-03 abandoned and relinquished their right and title to the warehoused goods under Section 68 as amended in 2003 and sent the abandonment notice to the Chief Commissioner and others on 20-10-03. They received a letter from the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the Customs Act does not designate the Chief Commissioner as the Officer for abandonment and that they should approach the Dy. Commissioner and therefore the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Company Ltd. v. UOI - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 19 (Bom.). They further pointed out that in the case of Phoenix International Ltd. v. CC - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 527 (Tribunal) = 2004 (62) RLT 181 (T-Che) the Tribunal held that when the application for extension of warehousing period is pending consideration by the Commissioner then in that case even confirmation of demand under Section 72 without waiting for the decision for extension has been held to be invalid. Further reference is made to CCE C v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 369 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that relinquishment of title to the warehoused goods after expiry of warehousing period is permissible in law and it is proper. It has further been held that despite warehou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ircular 3/03, dated 14-1-03 which permits re-export of goods under Section 69 even if the permitted period for bonding has expired. Counsel also refers to proviso to Section 68 which grants power to the owner of any warehoused goods to relinquish his title to the goods before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption has been made in respect of such goods and that he shall not be liable to pay duty thereon. 2. Learned SDR contented that as the appellants had not cleared bonded warehoused goods, they are liable to pay the duty, interest and penalty as held by the Commissioner in his detailed order. 3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the appellants are not contesting the duty liability appropriated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... confirmation of demand on the goods which were abandoned is not proper and is required to be set side. However, in terms of proviso to Section 68, they are liable to pay rent, interest and other charges in respect of goods in terms of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Pratibha Processors - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.), liability to pay interest on warehoused goods under Section 61(2) is dependent upon the excisability or actual liability to pay duty. Therefore in terms of this judgment, the interest amount is an accessory duty as direct nexus with duty demand in terms of proviso to Section 61(2)(i) of Customs Act, interest is chargeable on the amount of duty payable at the time of clearance of the goods in accordance with the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates