9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest on warehoused goods. 2. Rejection of refund claim for excess interest charged. 3. Interpretation of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding interest-free warehousing period. 4. Application of amended provisions of Section 61 to goods warehoused before the effective date. 5. Evidence of unjust enrichment and passing on of amount to buyer. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order-in-appeal holding the appellants liable to pay interest on warehoused goods and rejecting their refund claim. The appellants imported goods and warehoused them under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962, which initially provided for interest-free warehousing for one year. However, this period was reduced to six months by a notification. The authorities charged interest beyond six months for goods warehoused before the notification's effective date, leading to the refund claim rejection based on amended provisions. 2. The appellant argued that the interest charged was incorrect as the reduced interest-free period should only apply to goods warehoused after the notification's effective date. They relied on a tribunal decision supporting their position. The Department Representative supported the lower authorities' decision based on a CBEC circular clarifying the application of revised interest rates. 3. The Tribunal found that the assessment clearly indicated the interest-free period for the goods on the Bills of Entry. The reduction of the interest-free period without proper process amounted to reassessment. Referring to previous tribunal decisions, the Tribunal held that the reduced interest-free period should not apply retrospectively to goods warehoused before the effective date of the notification. 4. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of prospective operation of laws and cited previous cases to support the application of Section 61 as it stood before the amendment to goods warehoused prior to the amendment's effective date. The Tribunal set aside the order applying the reduced interest-free period to pre-notification warehoused goods and remanded the matter to consider evidence of unjust enrichment before making a decision on the refund claim. 5. The appellant was granted the opportunity to present evidence of non-passing of the amount to the buyer, and the matter was remanded for further consideration by the adjudicating authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the Tribunal directed a reassessment based on the evidence to be produced by the appellant.
|
