9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered warehousing of the goods under Section 60 of the Customs Act. The appellants completed all the formalities under the Customs Act and the goods were physically warehoused at the Central Warehousing Corporation, a Public Bonded Warehouse at Toranagallu, Bellary District, which is away from the Gateway Port. At the time of clearance of the goods from the warehouse, the appellants were required to pay interest under Section 61 of the Customs Act. It so happened that the appellants paid interest at a flat rate under Section 61 and also under Section 47. The appellants felt that there was no need for them to have paid under Section 47. Moreover, they found that they had paid interest under Section 61 at a flat rate of 24% instead of the slab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arts from the date on which the goods were entered at the Gateway Port for warehousing. The appellants are highly aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, they have come before the Tribunal for relief. 3.S/Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar and N. Anand, the learned Advocates appeared for the appellants and Shri K. Sambi Reddy, the learned JDR for the Revenue. 4.The learned Advocates took up each point and argued forcefully with a number of citations. The learned SDR also argued that the Department's contention in these appeals is correct as per law. 5.We shall take up each of the points under dispute and give our findings : 5.1The Commissioner (Appeals) has already held that interest is payable only at slab rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remained physically in such warehouse. It has also been held that no interest need be paid for the period when goods actually were lying in docks and not physically warehoused. 5.2.2The learned JDR invited our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. v. CCE C - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 212 (Tribunal) and said that as per the above decision, liability to pay interest commences from the date on which the proper officer makes an order permitting the deposit of the goods in a warehouse. 5.2.3On going through the above decision, we find that the Tribunal has not held the above view as stated by the JDR. It has been only held that in respect of the goods warehoused prior to 13-5-1983, they are to be go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat a bond is required to be executed for warehousing and the bond provides for payment of interest at 6%. It was only for the first time that under Notification No. 143/83, the Board fixed the rate of interest at 12% and hence, no interest is chargeable to the goods warehoused prior to 13-5-1983. The contention of the learned Advocate that no interest is payable at all by the appellants since goods have been warehoused prior to 13-5-1983 was not accepted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the appellants had given a bond as per provisions of Section 59 of the Customs Act undertaking to pay the interest at 6% and they are bound by the conditions of the Bond. 5.2.5Hence, it is very clear that the facts of this case are distinguishable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ledger extract showing interest as expenditure with a debit entry. Further, he stated that the Chartered Accountant's Certificate establishes the following facts :- (a) That the certificate was based on examination of books of account; (b) That interest had been debited to the expenses and the said burden was not passed on to the customers or any other person; (c) That the amount had been shown as receivables in the books of account of the Appellant; (d) That it was further verified that the sale price of the final products of the Appellant was not influenced by the interest paid on the warehoused goods; (e) That the price of the final product was market driven; and (f) That it was verified and certified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
