2015 (12) TMI 795 - AT - Customs

Duty demand - Storage of goods in warehouse beyond warehousing period - Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order on erroneous facts and therefore the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. In our considered view the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to ascertain the correct fact and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. It is apparent that the respondent had not given the correct fact and therefore such order cannot be sustained. The other issues as raised by both the sides would be required to decide after considering the correct facts of the case. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal arising from common order regarding duty on goods stored in bonded warehouse beyond valid period.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a situation where the respondents were granted a license for "Private Bonded Warehousing" under the Customs Act 1962, allowing storage of goods without duty payment on first importation. They were also permitted to manufacture "Ocean Going Vessels" in the bonded warehouse. However, the respondents stored duty-free goods in the warehouse beyond the valid warehousing period. The Adjudicating authority imposed duty, interest, and penalty, which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals).

During the appeal, both sides argued at length. The main contention of the Revenue's Authorized Representative was that the Commissioner (Appeals) based the decision on erroneous facts, leading to incorrect application of the law. The Revenue's Authorized Representative specifically pointed out that the respondent's request for an extension of the warehousing period had been rejected before the impugned order was passed, although this information was not disclosed during the proceedings.

The respondent's Advocate acknowledged the correctness of the facts presented by the Revenue but argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) applied relevant decisions correctly despite the erroneous facts. The Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that other issues favored the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed based the order on incorrect facts, rendering the findings unsustainable. It was noted that the respondent did not provide accurate information, leading to an unsound decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to reevaluate the case based on accurate facts and applicable law, ensuring a proper opportunity for a hearing before issuing a new order. The Tribunal clarified that their decision to remand the matter was not a reflection of any opinion on the merits of the case. Ultimately, all appeals were allowed for remand, and miscellaneous applications were disposed of.