9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected the claim on the ground of limitation. 2. Relevant facts are : Appellants had imported 996.794 M. Tonnes of MEG, used by them for production of fibre and yarn. They filed the Bill of Entry for warehousing at Kandla and also deposited a sum of Rs. 8,81,238 at Customs Treasury, Kandla on 31-5-1991 towards interest for the imported MEG for the period 9-4-1991 to 31-5-1991. Thereafter the MEG was transferred to Kota Customs Bonded Warehouse by Shipping Bill No. 84, dated 26-6-1991. According to the appellants at the time of ex-bond clearance of MEG at Kota the Customs authorities insisted on payment of interest again from 9-4-1991 up to the dates of clearance on 6-7-1991 and 8-7-1991 instead of from 1-6-1991 despite the appellants co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und of interest was the date of payment of interest and not the date of finalisation of interest. Since the refund claim was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of interest, Assistant Commissioner rejected their claim as time-barred. He also held that though the goods imported by the appellants were assessed provisionally under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 interest on delayed clearance of warehoused goods is paid as per the provisions of Sections 59 and 61 of the said Act. He also held that interest paid on warehoused goods in case of delayed clearance of warehoused imported goods had nothing to do with the provisional assessment of goods. 5. Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the Asstt. Commissioner s ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, learned Advocate contended that limitation for claiming refund of duty as well as interest can arise only after finalisation of assessment. In the premises ld. Advocate submitted that the impugned order suffered from infirmity and deserves to be set aside. 7. JDR, Shri D.K. Nayyar reiterated the findings of lower authorities and submitted that Section 27 before its amendment on 23-12-1991 did not contain any provision relating to refund claim on interest. It covered only refund of duty which was six months. 8. I have considered the rival contentions. I find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. It is observed that Section 27(1) of the Customs Act as it stood at the relevant time provided for c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually payable under Section 61(2). In other words, no interest paid on the basis of provisionally assessed duty can be taken to be the interest for purposes of denying a claim of refund under Section 27. Provisionality of assessment of duty would necessarily have to be extended to interest paid on such provisionally assessed duty. 9. Learned Advocate had also referred to Customs Notice contained in CBEC Letter F. No. 475/39/90-Cus. VII, dated 8-8-1990 which had clarified that warehousing interest levied - under Section 61(2) is distinguishable from customs duty under Section 2(xv). Accordingly provisions of Section 27 will not apply to refund of interest recovered under Section 61(2). It further clarified that in such cases the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
