2003 (9) TMI 151 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of interest under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 on goods cleared for home consumption under Section 68.
2. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding the accrual of interest on warehoused goods.
3. Applicability of Madras Customs House Public Notice on interest commencement.
4. Effect of the amendment to Section 61 of the Customs Act on demands for interest.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant was issued Show Cause Notices for clearing goods in a piece-meal manner after the expiry of seven days from the date on which Bills of Entry were returned for payment of duty. The Assistant Commissioner dropped the notices, stating that interest under Section 47(2) is applicable only to goods covered under Section 47(1) and not to goods cleared for home consumption under Section 68. The Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, relying on a Tribunal judgment and a Madras Custom House Public Notice, demanding interest on the warehoused goods cleared for home consumption.

2. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on the Tribunal judgment, which pertained to a period when Section 61 had a different provision for interest payment on warehoused goods. After the amendment, interest is payable on duty at the time of clearance of warehoused goods. The Tribunal concluded that the judgment cited by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not applicable in the present case, and therefore, the demand for interest based on that judgment was incorrect.

3. The Tribunal also noted that the Madras Customs House Public Notice relied upon by the Commissioner may not be applicable to the present case, as the Appellant falls under the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Commissioner. The lack of explanation or evidence regarding the applicability of the Madras Trade Notice to the present case raised doubts about its relevance and applicability.

4. Lastly, the Tribunal considered the effect of the amendment to Section 61 of the Customs Act, which now includes demands for interest not paid or short levied. Since the notices in this case were issued before this amendment, proposing to confirm the demand under the old provision, the Tribunal held that the notices could not be proceeded with. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal, stating that the impugned order could not be upheld based on the findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal provisions, precedents, and amendments led to the decision to set aside the demand for interest on the warehoused goods cleared for home consumption and allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant.