9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 418X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of Entry Nos. 117/91-92, dated 14-8-1991 and 139/91-92 dated 5-9-1991. They applied for the extension of warehouse period which was rejected by the Collector under letter dated 11-12-1991 and 26-12-1991. Accordingly the action was initiated by the Department under Section 72(1) and (2) of the Customs Act directing the Appellants to pay duty plus interest at the rate of 20% and other charges. On 21-1-1992 and 22-1-1992 they filed ex-bond bills of entry Nos. 704 and 707/91-92 respectively for clearing the goods. The Assistant Collector, under Adjudication Order No. 1/92, dated 29-1-1992 denied the benefit of Notification No. 155/86 Cus., dated 1-3-1986 for want of requisite DGTD certificate in original and that the wordings of the Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the concept of actual removal/clearance would not apply; that the Superintendent acted beyond the scope of the Order-in-Appeal. 3. Shri K.A. Sindhi, learned Advocate, submitted that the Assistant Collector has denied them the benefit of Notification No. 155/86-Cus. and they cleared the goods from the warehouse as per the order dated 18-2-1992 of the Collector (Appeals) wherein the calculation made by the Assistant Collector was held to be incorrect; that as no appeal was filed by the Department against the said order, it was not justified for the Department to file appeal against reassessment ordered on 10-3-1992 done in implementation of Order; that the Order of the Assistant Collector has been held to be erroneous by the Collector (A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of their deemed removal from the warehouse, that is, the date on which the permitted period or its permitted extension came to an end. Finally the learned D.R. mentioned that the ratio of the decision in Priyanka Overseas case is not applicable as the facts are different in as much as the department did not allow the clearance of goods from the warehouse for non payment of redemption fine. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides, some of the facts which are not in dispute are that the warehousing period expired on 2-11-1991 and 29-11-1991 and the extension of the same was not permitted by the Collector; the appellants were directed under Section 72 of the Customs Act to pay the duty together with interest within th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector; and (ii) The Assistant Collector, thereafter would work out the duty as under Notification No. 155/86 as interpreted by the Collector (Appeals). 6. We are of the view that non-filing of appeal against the said Order is not relevant as the Revenue is not challenging the implementation of Orders. The Revenue had only challenged the assessment before the Collector (Appeals) as the assessment was done on the basis of rates of duty introduced by Budget of 1992 with effect from 1-3-1992. As the goods were deemed to have been removed under Section 72 of the Customs Act on the date the warehousing period came to end, the rate of duty effective from a subsequent date cannot be applied. We, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
