9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctors by availing exemption under Notification No. 53/97-Cus dated 03.06.1997. The Department alleged that they have violated the conditions of the Notification and the Bond executed as they have not utilized the connectors in the manufacture and export of their final products within the prescribed time limit. A SCN demanding Customs duty of Rs. 7,29,441/- along with the interest and penalty was issued to the appellants. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide Order No. 5/AC/2007 dated 31.07.2007 has confirmed the demand and imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of 4 Bonds executed by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order No. 23/2008 dated 07.02.2008 was upheld the OIA. Hence this appeal. 2. The counsel for the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are no more in the warehoused conditions is not sustainable in law and the appellants have right to relinquish the title of goods. They have relied upon the following cases. (i) CC Vs. i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (217) ELT 176 (Kar.) and 2006 (193) ELT 341 (Tri. Bang.) (ii) PSI Data Systems Ltd. Vs. CC, 2006 (202) ELT 316 (Tri. Bang.) affirmed by the Karnataka High Court in 2010 (255) ELT 55 (Kar.) (iii) RPG Cables Ltd. Vs. CC, 2007 (212) ELT 538 (Tri. Mum.) (iv) CCE Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd., 2000 (118) ELT 369 (Tri. Mum.) 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that if they are not entitled to abandon or relinquish the goods, they would be entitled to remission of duty in terms of Section 23(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e records of the case. 7. We find that the warehousing period in the case of appellants expired in 2002. However, they have made an application in May, 2004, the Chief Commissioner as can be seen from the records of the case, the Chief Commissioner has not replied to such letters even after a few reminders by the appellants. Only in 2006, the Department has informed the appellants that their application for extension of warehousing period was rejected by the Commissioner and they are required to pay duty, interest and penalties. Meanwhile, we find that the appellants have relinquished the goods vide their letter dated 11.12.2006 whereas a SCN was given in 2007. We find that the learned AR has relied upon the decision of PSI Data Systems Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the goods to exercise the right to relinquish the title of goods after the expiration of warehousing period or after expiration of the extended period. We find that the Hon'ble High Court has also observed that upon such relinquishments, the appellants shall not be liable to pay duty thereon; however, he has to pay rent, interest and other charges and penalties that may be payable in respect of such goods. We also find that Hon'ble High Court in the same order has distinguished the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the Keshav Ram Case, 1996 (86) ELT 464 (SC). Therefore, we find that the appellants are entitled to relinquish the goods at any time before an order for clearance of the goods for home consumption has been made. In this case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
