Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (12) TMI 608

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evy or short levied as has been stated in Section 28 of the Customs Act. On the admitted fact position that there was provisional levy already made in respect of the goods and the same were brought under double duty bond, we have no hesitation in holding that the proceedings now initiated under Section 72 read with 142 of the Customs Act as by way of recovery of the amount, payable by the importer is well in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The contention of the assessee that there was no notice issued prior to the sale of the bonded goods has nothing to do with the recovery of the amount due and payable by the importer. - Decided against assessee. - Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2227 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 3-10-2013 - Chitra Venkatara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... contravention to the Section 72(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 ? 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The appellant imported 17 Mts of whole areca nut valued at ₹ 6,38,145/- involving a duty amount of ₹ 6,89,197/- during August 2000 and the goods were warehoused on 16-8-2000 by executing a double duty bond. After warehousing period of one year, the party neither cleared the goods nor sought extension of warehousing period in the prescribed manner, inspite of reminders. As the appellant did not come forward to extend the bonding period, the Department, taking note of the perishable nature of the goods, auctioned the same on 3-3-20 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the period of bond was only for a period of one year and beyond the said period, the Department cannot demand the duty and hence, the show cause notice issued beyond a period of 2 year i.e., after the expiry of bonded period was a time barred in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that before the goods were sold, no notice was issued to the appellant, .which is in violation of Sub Section 2 of section 72 of the Customs Act and the CESTAT, without considering these aspects mechanically allowed the appeal filed by the Department and prays for setting aside the order of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nsideration the perishable nature of goods, having been warehoused since August 2000, appears to have been disposed of and realized the amount of ₹ 1,50,000/- and in the mean time, show cause notice was issued under Section 72 and 142 of the. Customs Act stating that in terms of sub-section 1(d) of Section 72, where any goods in respect of which a bond has been executed under Section 59 of the Customs Act, which have not been cleared for home consumption, the owner of such goods shall forthwith pay, the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with all penalties, rent, interest, and other charges. Thus, the duty amount demanded was ₹ 6,89,197/- and the appellant was also directed to show cause as to why p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Therefore, It is to be noted that in the instant case, the show cause notice issued under Section 72 of the Customs Act was dropped by the Assistant Commissioner (Bonds) treating the same as Incorrect pointing out that there is no recovery of duties not levied or short levied or payment was deferred in terms of the bond executed by the importer; the same is not applicable in this case; the stand taken by the Department that the uncleared cargo from the warehouse after expiry of the warehousing period permitted to remain in the warehouse under Section 61 of the Customs Act is a case of goods improperly removed from the warehouse in terms of Section 72 of the Act. 14. We find that the appellant was aware that the permission of the wareho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates