9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability to pay interest under Section 61 of the Customs Act. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 23/2001-Cus. 3. Interpretation of Section 61 of the Customs Act post-amendment. 4. Precedent set by the Larger Bench in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Indore. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against an order holding the appellants liable to pay interest under Section 61 of the Customs Act. The appellants had paid duty and interest upon removing goods from a warehouse. They claimed a refund, arguing that interest was wrongly charged until the date of ex-bonding, rather than the payment of duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, citing Notification No. 23/2001-Cus., which reduced the interest-free bonding period from 6 months to one month. 2. The contention of the appellants was that the notification should not apply retrospectively to goods warehoused before its enactment. However, the Tribunal found that Section 61 was amended by the Finance Act, 2001, reducing the interest period to one month effective from 1-6-2001. As the goods were removed after this amendment, the appellants were liable to pay interest as per the amended section, which was not given retrospective effect. 3. Citing the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Indore, the Tribunal emphasized that amended provisions apply from the date of enactment and not to documents issued before the amendment. The Larger Bench held that in a similar context, credit cannot be taken on duty-paying documents older than 6 months. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and rejected the appeals. 4. The judgment highlights the importance of interpreting statutory amendments strictly and in line with established legal principles. The decision underscores the significance of adhering to the law as amended and the precedents set by higher judicial authorities, ensuring consistency and clarity in legal interpretations within the customs and excise framework.
|
