9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emsp;Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent without considering the provisions stipulated in Section 72(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which envisage s "without prejudice to any other remedy, cause to be detained and sold, after notice to the owner (any transfer of the goods not with standing) such sufficient; portion of his goods, if any, in the warehouse as the said officer may select" ? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the Appeal, when the very show cause notice C.No, .VIII/22/60/2003 -CRA (bonds) dated 26-8-2003, issued under Section 72 and 142 of the Customs Act, 1962) is time barred and in the absence of any specific under Section 72 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Bonds), Custom House, Tuticorin, who is the original Adjudicating Authority, after due process, vide his order dated 23-3-2005, dropped the demand by holding inter alia that the option to relinquish the title of the goods without any duty liability has not been provided to the importer; that the demand was time barred in terms of provisions of Section 28 of the Act and hence, the duty demanded under Section 72(1)(d) of the Act was not in order. 5. Aggrieved by such order, the Department preferred appeal to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) Trichy. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 19.01.2006, rejected the Department's Appeal and challenging the same, the Revenue preferred further appeal before the Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of the Act. It is by virtue of execution of bond, the demand of duty, thus, hold good, since the appellant did not remove the warehoused goods within the period of the bond. 9. However, on failure of the appellant to remove the goods, the Department issued notice to the appellant on 26-8-2003 under : Section 72 and 142 of the Act. The appellant submitted a reply on 3-3-2005 requesting to extend the bonding period by another three months and the same was forwarded to the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, who directed the appellant to submit the application in the prescribed format for extension of the warehousing period. Accordingly, the importer was addressed to comply with the above directions vide letter dated 31-10-2001 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Original authority as well as the First Appellate Authority failed to see that this is not the case of recovery of duties, which are not been levied or short levied or erroneously levied, therefore, reference to Section 28 was thoroughly misconceived. 12. In terms of sub-section (1)(b) of Section 72 of the Customs Act, if any warehoused goods have not been removed after the expiration of the period, during which such goods are permitted under Section 61 of the Act to remain in a ware house, the proper Officer under the Act may demand from the owner, of such goods shall forthwith pay the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with all : penalties, rent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
