9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... informed the DRI that party had applied for approval of additional premises on 06.02.2008 and after getting the verification report dated 17.06.2009 from the Range Superintendent, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, City Division has approved the additional premises on 03.07.2009. The letter of licence issuing authority also clearly state that Warehouse -2 situated on the additional land of 17,415 sq. mtr. stands included in the PWB of respondent with effect from 06.02.2009 under Section 58 of the Customs Act 1962. Since the disputed goods were found within the registered and bonded PBW on the date of search, Ld. Commissioner correctly dropped the demand. There are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 478 of 2011-DB - Final Order No. A/11340/2022 - Dated:- 2-11-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri. T. G Rathod, Additional Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant Shri. Sarju Mehta, Chartered Accountant for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is filed by the Department against the Order-In-Original No. 13/BVR/Commr/2011 dated 30.06.2011 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aggrieved by the said impugned order revenue filed the present appeal 3. Shri. T. G Rathod, learned Additional Commissioner (Authorized Representative) appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the adjudicating authority has erred in holding that permission for extension of PBW was granted under letter dated 04.03.2010 in response to the assessee s application dated 06.02.2009 in as much as the application dated 06.02.2009 did not have any request for extension of the PBW and no mention of PBW was made in the said application. Thus, the permission letter issued on 04.03.2010 by the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers was not for extension of the area approved under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.1. He submits that in view of the earlier permission given by the Jurisdictional Central Excise Authority for extension of PBW vide letter dated 23.01.2007 clearly pointing out the fact of extension of PBW to an area of Length 124 Mtr X 92.42 Mtr , therein unlike in case of permission letter dated 04.03.2010. This fact was not taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority while concluding that Shed-2 was coming under PBW and central excise registered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng given by the Adjudicating Authority in the impugned order. He submits that it is on record that the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise vide letter dated 09.03.2010 and Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar under letter dated 23.03.2010 informed the DRI that the respondent had applied for approval of additional premises on 06.02.2009 and after getting verification report dated 17.06.2009 from the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent, the department had approved the additional premises on 03.07.2009. It is well evident that during the search on 04.03.2010 the duty free imported raw materials found by the DRI officers were within the PBW and cannot be said to have been found outside the PBW or removed illegally from bonded premises of Respondent. Therefore revenue department s appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. We find that the issue in the present case requires an answer to the following question :- Whether the duty free material found during the search of the premises of M/s Modest at Warehouse- 2 can be considered as lying outside the bonded warehouse and registered premises of M/s Modest, consequently liable for payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise, City Division has approved the additional premises on 03.07.2009. In view of the above letters of the Jurisdictional officers itself make it clear that Warehouse 2 situated on the additional land of 17415 Sq. Mtrs stands included in the PBW of respondent w.e.f. 03.07.2009 under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the duty free imported raw materials found therein on 04.03.2010 during the search by the DRI officers were within the PBW and cannot be said to have been found outside the PBW. Accordingly, demand on these goods are not sustainable. 7. The revenue contended that respondent s application dated 06.02.2009 did not have any request for extension of the PBW and no mention of PBW was made in the said application. Thus, the permission by the Jurisdictional Central Excise officers was not for extension of the area approved under Section 58 and 65 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard we find that in the said application M/s Modest has submitted revised ground plan showing entire ship yard with a request for approval and granting necessary permission. It is on record that verification of the said premises carried out by the Jurisdictional Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
