9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere it was held that the warehousing period applicable would be the period in force on the date of deposit of the goods in the warehouse was affirmed - appeal allowed. - C/243 & 233/2004 and C/118/2003 - 757, 758 & 759/2008 - Dated:- 23-7-2008 - S/Shri P.G. Chacko, P. Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Consultant and T. Ramesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng period was one year, which was reduced to 6 months w.e.f. 2-5-1999 and further reduced to 30 days w.e.f. 1-6-2001. The goods imported by the appellants remained warehoused for a fairly long period beyond the warehousing period and it was during this period of overstay of the warehoused goods that the above amendments were brought to Section 61 of the Act. A dispute arose between the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). In another case of warehousing, the importer did not pay the interest demanded by the department. The original authority confirmed the demand and the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the same. The appellate Commissioner's order is under challenge in appeal No. C/233/04. 2. After hearing both sides and considering their submissions, we note that the above is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und claim of the party on the ground of limitation after holding that Section 27 of the Customs Act is not applicable to a claim for refund of interest paid under Section 61(2) of the Act. The refund claims in question were filed beyond six months but within one year from the date of payment of interest. We are of the view that there was no inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in claimin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
