9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 283 - AT - Customs100% EOU - extension of the warehousing period - renewal of warehousing license under Section 58 of the Customs Act - illegal removal of goods from the warehouse - inability to produce the warehoused goods for verification. Whether the warehousing period of the capital goods gets automatically extended with the renewal of warehousing license under Section 58 of the Customs Act are of separate extension of the capital goods lying in the warehouses has to be obtained? - HELD THAT - The Tribunal has decided in the case Sun Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (12) TMI 117 - CESTAT, BANGALORE and HCL Technologies 2017 (6) TMI 1133 - CESTAT BANGALORE that warehousing period of capital goods gets extended automatically till the date of expiry of warehousing license Whether inability to produce the warehoused goods for verification at the time of visit of officers amounts to removal of the goods from the warehouse? - HELD THAT - The Bench in the case of WIPRO GE MEDICAL SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF CUS., BANGALORE 2009 (7) TMI 704 - CESTAT, BANGALORE has held that duty cannot be demanded on the goods just because of the appellants could not show the goods for physical visit of the officers - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Whether the warehousing period of capital goods gets automatically extended with the renewal of warehousing license under Section 58 of the Customs Act or separate extension of the capital goods lying in the warehouses has to be obtained. 2. Whether inability to produce the warehoused goods for verification at the time of visit of officers amounts to removal of the goods from the warehouse. Analysis: 1. Issue 1 - Warehousing Period Extension: The appellants, a 100% EOU under the STP scheme, imported capital goods under specific notifications. The dispute arose when Preventive Officers alleged illegal removal of goods from the warehouse due to the expiration of the warehousing period. The appellant argued that the warehousing period automatically extends with the renewal of the warehouse license, citing precedents like Sun Microsystems India Pvt. Ltd. and HCL Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing that the warehousing period extends till the expiry of the license, as per Circular 7/2005. Therefore, duty and penalties were deemed premature, ruling in favor of the appellants. 2. Issue 2 - Verification of Warehoused Goods: Regarding the second issue, the Department contended that the inability to produce the warehoused goods for verification constituted removal, demanding duty, interest, and penalty. However, previous judgments, including CC (I & G), New Delhi Vs Datex Ohmeda (India) Ltd., established that failure to present goods for physical verification does not warrant duty imposition. The Tribunal distinguished the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in JSW Steel Ltd., emphasizing its inapplicability to the current case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, rejecting the Department's claims. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants on both issues, affirming the automatic extension of the warehousing period and dismissing the allegation of goods removal based on verification challenges. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to customs regulations and the significance of legal precedents in resolving disputes related to bonded warehouses and duty obligations.
|
