9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. 2. Both the reference applications involve in consideration of the same questions of law and hence they were taken up for disposal together. Both the Reference Applications are against the common order passed by this Bench bearing No. 797-800/91-WRB, dated 12-4-1991 allowing the appeals of the Respondents and giving directions to grant consequential reliefs by way of refund of the interest collected in respect of warehoused goods which were cleared from the warehouse and the said goods were wholly exempted. This Bench took note of the decision of the Kerala High Court on the very same issue reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 357 (Ker.) = 1991 (31) ECR 598 (Ker.) in the case of Thungabhadra Fibres Ltd., Bangalore v. Union of India of Anot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision in Notification No. 116/88-Cus. Though liability to pay interest is an adjunct to a debt or liability, can the extinguishment of principal debt or liability, ipso facto absolve the debtor from liability to pay interest which has already become payable as a distinct liability? 3. Whether the Hon ble High Court was correct in holding that liability to pay duty is only at the time of clearance of goods, when Section 72(1) specifically lays down liability to pay duty on the date of expiry of warehousing period as allowed under Section 61(1) unless the importers relinquish the title to the goods U/s 23(2) of C.A. 62? Does not the bond executed by the importer U/s 59 conclude that liability to pay duty has already been incurred but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se grounds, he contended that the points of law have arisen. On a query he however fairly conceded that the question No. 3, as framed by the Collector, is not happily worded; because of the fact that the question deals with the decision of the High Court and not with the order of the Bench and hence that part of question cannot be said to be arising out of the order of this Bench. 4. Shri R. Parthasarathy, the Ld. Adv. on the other hand, referred to the relevant portion of the findings of this Bench and also the decision of the Kerala High Court and pleaded that it is statutorily laid down that the rate of duty, as prevalent on the date of clearance, is applicable in respect of warehoused goods and when on the date of clearance, there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under DEEC Scheme, they can recover the duty payment with the interest payable thereon in terms of the undertaking given by the importers. Hence when the goods are released duty free in terms of the exemption notification, there is no principal amount required to be paid. The principal amount would arise, only when the conditions imposed are not fulfilled and such an amount would be demanded in terms of the undertaking executed by the importers. As regards the arguments advanced by the SDR, we are to take note of the position as laid down under the Customs Act. Under Section 15 of the Customs Act, rate of duty in respect of the warehoused goods shall be the one prevalent on the date on which the goods were actually removed from the warehous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
