9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability for interest on duty payable from warehousing to relinquishment of title. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 68, 72(1), and Section 117. Analysis: 1. The case involved a stay petition against the confirmation of demands for interest and penalty. The appellant had imported Beer and bonded it, relinquishing the title during the bonding period. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice later for duty, interest, and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority dropped the duty demand but confirmed interest and penalty. The appellant argued that without a duty liability, there should be no interest payment. The SDR contended that interest was due for the bonded period till relinquishment. 2. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that without a duty demand, there should be no interest liability or penalty. Since the title was relinquished within the bonding period, the appellant had a prima facie case for waiving the pre-deposit of amounts. The Tribunal allowed the application for waiving pre-deposit and stayed recovery until the appeal's disposal. Revenue was prohibited from taking coercive measures until the appeal was decided, with the stay order continuing even after 180 days. 3. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of duty liability, which negated the basis for interest and penalty. By recognizing the timing of title relinquishment within the bonding period, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's case for a waiver of pre-deposit and ensured a stay on recovery until the appeal's resolution. This judgment clarified the interplay between duty liability, interest, and penalty, emphasizing the importance of a prima facie case for granting relief in such matters.
|
