2008 (7) TMI 632 - AT - Customs

Interest on warehoused goods - Refund of interest - Time Limitation - Held that - the issue stands settled in favor of the appellants by the judgment of the Apex Court in UOI v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mills, 1996 (3) TMI 134 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that the warehousing period applicable would be the period in force on the date of deposit of the goods in the warehouse was affirmed - appeal allowed.

Issues:
1. Demand of interest for the period of overstay of warehoused goods.
2. Denial of refund of interest paid by the appellants.
3. Applicability of the amendment to the warehoused goods.
4. Rejection of refund claim on grounds of limitation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand of Interest for Overstay of Warehoused Goods
The judgment addresses the appeal against the demand of interest for the period of overstay of warehoused goods. It explains that as per Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, interest is payable for any period of overstay of goods in the warehouse. The warehousing period was initially one year, then reduced to 6 months, and further to 30 days. The dispute arose regarding the applicability of the reduced warehousing period to goods warehoused before the amendment date. The appellate tribunal noted that the law in force at the time of deposit of goods in the warehouse governs the warehousing period, citing the Apex Court judgment in UOI v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mills. Consequently, the appellants were entitled to a refund of interest paid or relief against the demand of interest based on this settled issue.

Issue 2: Denial of Refund of Interest Paid
The judgment discusses the denial of refund of interest paid by the appellants. In two cases, the appellants paid interest based on the departmental view but later filed refund claims, which were rejected by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The tribunal, following the settled law from the Apex Court judgment, allowed the appeals, stating that the appellants were entitled to a refund of interest paid. This decision was based on the principle that the warehousing period applicable is the one in force at the time of deposit of goods in the warehouse.

Issue 3: Applicability of Amendment to Warehoused Goods
The judgment clarifies the applicability of the amendment to the warehoused goods. It highlights the dispute between the department and the importer regarding whether the reduced warehousing period should apply to goods warehoused before the amendment date. The tribunal resolved this issue by affirming that the warehousing period is governed by the law in force at the time of deposit of goods in the warehouse, as established by the Apex Court judgment. Consequently, the appellants were granted relief against the demand of interest or entitled to a refund of interest paid, depending on the specific case.

Issue 4: Rejection of Refund Claim on Grounds of Limitation
The judgment addresses the rejection of refund claims on the grounds of limitation. The lower appellate authority rejected the refund claim, citing that Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to a claim for refund of interest paid under Section 61(2) of the Act. However, the tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, stating that there was no undue delay in claiming the refund. Referring to Circular No. 475/39/90-Cus.VII, which took a liberal view on such refund claims, the tribunal allowed the appeals for refund claims filed within a reasonable timeframe, rejecting the lower authority's decision on limitation.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues by applying legal principles and precedents to grant relief to the appellants regarding the demand of interest, denial of refund, applicability of amendments, and rejection of refund claims based on limitation.

← Previous Next →