9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/6/2001, cleared for home consumption thereafter – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. - C/349/05 - A/89209/16/CB - Dated:- 25-7-2016 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Anil Balani, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Kamal Puggal, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Orders-in-Appeal No. PII/BKS/471/2004 dated 27/10/2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Pune-II whereby he rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant warehoused the imported goods in the private bonded warehouse during the period January, 2001 to May, 2001. At the time of warehousing the goods, interest free period was provided for 180 days. However, as per the notification No. 23/2001-Cus(NT) dated 22/5/2001, effective from 1/6/2001, the interest was chargeable after expiry of bond period of 30 days. The appellant had cleared warehoused the goods during the period June, 2001 to December, 2001 and interest was paid considering 180 days as interest free period. The Revenues contention is that since the goods rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Counsel. Relevant paras of the said judgments are reproduced below: Caterpillar India Ltd 3 . We find that it is now well settled that Notification dated 22-5-2001 reducing the interest-free period in respect of the warehoused goods from 180 days to 30 days will apply only in respect of goods warehoused post 1-6-2001, such decision scan be seen in the case of Jindal Steel Power Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2004 (172) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.-Del.)], LML Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur [2006 (201) E.L.T. 110 (Tri.-Del.)] and Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore [2007 (207) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Bang.)]. [This decision has been upheld by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court as seen from 2008 (222) E.L.T. 35 (Kar.)]. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal. LML Ltd 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. I find, that it is not in dispute, that the appellant s goods (imported) were warehoused by them under yellow Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods warehoused prior to the said date but only from the expiry of six months or 12-5-99 whichever is later. Significantly, in respect of goods warehoused prior to 12-5-99 the revised interest rate was not made applicable for a period of six months from the date of warehousing. This rule of prospective operation appears to be equally good in respect of Notification No. 23/2001-Cus. (N.T.). In the case of J.K. Synthetics (supra), the question arose whether, in respect of goods imported and warehoused prior to 13-5-1983 (the date on which Section 61 was amended to provide for payment of interest), any interest was payable at all. After examining Section 61(2) as amended as on 13-5-1983, this Tribunal found that there was nothing in the amendment to indicate that it was to operate with retrospective effect. It was accordingly held that the provision would have to be interpreted in the light of the generally accepted principle of statutory construction that every statute was prima facie prospective unless it was expressly or by necessary implication given retrospective operation. The Tribunal further noted that it is also well accepted that every statute which takes away or impa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision. The normal period of warehousing for these goods under Section 61 of the Customs Act was one year when the same were warehoused on importation. Section 61 was amended on 13-5-1983. As a result of amendment of that Section the bonding period for these goods were reduced from one year to three months and a provision was inserted providing for charging interest on the amount of duty for the extended period of warehousing. In the present case, original warehousing period of one year was extended on the request of the importer after 13-5-1983. They also undertook to pay interest, if payable. The Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector shows that interest was charged when initial period of bonding of one year expired. In other words, interest has been charged for the extended period in excess of one year. This is clearly permissible under the amended Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, which has been extracted in para 5 of the order proposed by Member (Judicial). This interest is nothing but a payment for delayed payment of duty because of extension of normal period of warehousing. The Department has correctly and very justifiably charged interest on the amount of duty in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
