9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proposed to destroy the goods. Mutually inconsistent proposal. Held that- no finding as to how assessee rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Penalty not imposable. - C/430 and 541/2008 - A/707-708/2009-WZB/C-IV/SMB - Dated:- 9-11-2009 - Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) Shri S. Murthy, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Kishori Lal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - One of these appeals was filed by the assessee challenging a demand of duty of Rs. 1,85,407/- which was raised under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act. The other appeal was filed by the department against the dropping of redemption fine and penalty. It appears from the records (a) that the department issued a show cause notice dated 27-4-2000 under Section 12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the department to issue a speaking order on 26-10-99. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs passed an order allowing the party to clear the 'highly perishable' goods. Nevertheless, the party did not, or could not, clear such goods. While so, on 15-11-99, the department revoked the warehouse licence under Section 58(2) of the Customs Act. The show cause notice in question came to be issued in the next year. In this scenario, the question arises as to whether the assessee is liable to pay duty on the perishable goods warehoused by them and eventually destroyed under departmental supervision pursuant to the Settlement Commission's order. Learned Counsel has claimed the benefit of Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, which provides th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s order. Could duty be demanded on such goods under Section 72? Section 72(1) authorises demand of duty on warehoused goods. Obviously, the goods must remain warehoused. This is not the case here. The warehouse licence was suspended with effect from 15-11-99 beyond which there was no licence to warehouse and therefore there were no "warehoused goods". In such a situation, Section 72(1) could not be invoked to demand duty on the goods in question. 3. It is settled law that a person cannot be called upon to redeem goods which have already been destroyed. In other words, there can be no redemption in lieu of confiscation of destroyed goods. Even otherwise, where the goods are not available for confiscation, there can be no redemption fine un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
