9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 593X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods on payment of duty by availing the facility of extension of warehousing period provided under the Customs Act. The appellants were given time up to 31-3-1999 for clearing the goods as per law. It is seen that the imported goods are computer parts and due to high rate of obsolescence in information technology and also consequent to the slow down of the economy, they were not able to sell the imported goods. Under these circumstances, they applied to RBI for permission to re-export the goods after getting some orders from foreign buyers at a much reduced price. The appellants contend that prior to expiry of the extended warehousing period i.e. 31-3-1999, they requested the department for further extension of the period so that they co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1999. In this regard, as directed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Customs Division, Bangalore, you are hereby requested to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- per Bond totally amounting to Rs. 85,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of 17 Bonds covered under the aforesaid Show Cause Notices. Yours faithfully Sd/- Superintendent of Customs Customs Division Bonded Warehouse, 28/2, Crescent Road, Bangalore - 560 001 3. In view of the above letter, the appellant believed that the department is going to consider their request for re-export and therefore they promptly paid the amount demanded as penalty on 13-10-2000. However the Dy. Commissioner issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal dispensation does not have the authority for remanding the case for de novo adjudication. I do not agree with this. In the case of Union of India v. Umesh Dhamode [reported in 1998 (98) E.L.T. 584 (S.C.)] the Hon ble Supreme Court, inter alia, pronounced that the Appellate Authorities having powers under Section 128 for passing orders confirming modifying or annulling the decision on orders appealed against it, would have powers to remand since an order of remand necessarily annuls the decision, which is under appeal. In view of this, I remand the case for de novo adjudication with the specific direction indicated supra. 4. The department went in appeal to CESTAT on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not enjoy the pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon v. Collector - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.) held that where the goods are not cleared within the warehousing period, penal action, in terms of Section 72(l)(b) would follow. I find that in this case, sufficient opportunity was given for the Appellants to remove the warehoused goods. In view of this, I hold that the order of the original adjudicating authority confirming the demand and the interest on end use bond wise, is proper and legally correct. I find no reason to interfere with the same and uphold the Order-in-Original 84-99/2000/CD/DC, dated 19-10-2000 and set aside the appeal. 5. The appellants have come before this Tribunal aggrieved over the above mentioned order of the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axims he said that no man can take advantage of his own wrong. 7. The learned JCDR said that there is absolutely no infirmity either in the Order of the original authority or that of the Commissioner (Appeals). She said that the appellant was being given repeated extensions and once the warehousing period expires, they are bound to discharge the duty and interest liability. She relied on the decision of the Hon ble S.C. in the case of Kesoram Rayon v. CC, Calcutta - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.) = 1996 (66) ECR 201 S.C. 8. We have gone through the rival contentions. It is on record that the department had not taken any action on the request of the appellants for export of the goods even though such request was made prior to 31-3-1999. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
