9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 825X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ariff Act, 1985. The appellants Imported 24 PLT Tin Plate falling under Chapter Sub-Heading No. 8309.90, without payment of duty in terms of Notification No. 53/97-Cus., dated 3-6-1997. The appellants vide their letter dated 30-9-2003, communicated that; (i) the imported goods were warehoused in their Customs Bonded Warehouse on 5-4-2003 (ii) on examination of the aforesaid imported goods by their quality control department, it was found that the goods were rusted and fungus had formed and accordingly became unfit for packing the products; (iii) they requested permission to destroy the aforesaid imported Tin Plate, under the supervision of the Customs Central Excise Officers. The appellants vide their letter dated 11-11-2004, inter alia s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the impugned goods, in terms of Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the adjudicating authority held that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Central Excise and Customs Laws. The department initiated proceeding which culminated in confirmation of demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the appellant. 2.1 Aggrieved by such an order issued by the Adjudicating Authority, the appellants preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (A). The learned Commissioner (A) after granting an opportunity of personal hearing came to the following conclusion while upholding the order of the Adjudicating Authority. I have gone through the case records and the rival contentions. The issue to be decided is wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has not followed the prescribed procedure under law for destruction of damaged goods for entitlement of remission of duty. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be rejected. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected. Appellants are aggrieved by the above said order and hence, are challenging the same. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the following sequence of events are submitted to press home the point that the impugned order is not correct and is improper. (a) 24 pallets of packing material namely tinplate easy open ends were imported by the appellant and received into their factory on 3-4-2003. The containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1-12-2004 and immediately on 3-12-2004, the appellant informed the department that the goods were destroyed on 27-11-2004 as fungus was spreading and likely to cause damage to other goods. (f) A Show Cause Notice was issued on 17-3-2005 and finally by his Order-in-Original No. 0172006 dated 27-3-2006, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 7,72,847/- on the ground that the appellant had not produced any permission to destroy the goods. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. (g) On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order-in-Appeal No. 9/2007 dated 29-6-2007 upheld the order of the lower authority without considering any of the grounds argued by the appellant. It was also the submission th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is also undisputed that the appellants have been keeping the department informed about the damaged condition of the imported goods. It is also undisputed that the said damage was certified by the Insurance Company and the appellants had sought the permission to destroy the goods under Central Excise provisions. The list of sequence of events as submitted by the learned counsel clearly indicates that the appellant was consistently following-up with the revenue authorities for destruction of said goods. Despite of such efforts, there was no answer or any communication from the revenue and the appellants were slapped with the show cause notice on 17-3-2005 for destruction of such goods. We are of the considered opinion, that in this case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... When the Capital Goods are imported, the initial bonding period is 5 years and later, the period can be further extended. In these extension also, a very liberal approach is adopted by the Board and there are very many instructions to that effect. In the Circular of 2005, it is stated that even if the manufacturer or the importer has not applied for extension of warehousing period in respect of the imported goods, the very fact that the warehouse licence has been extended is sufficient and automatically the warehousing period in respect of the imported goods, the very fact that the warehouse licence has been extended is sufficient and automatically the warehousing period also may be got extended. These liberal approaches have to be apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
