9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. It is further found that Revenue has also been sleeping over the matter and in spite of expiry of the warehousing period, as early as in June, 2004 and the last order of warehousing period expired on 16.08.2008. Revenue also kept sleeping over the period and never issued any notice for demanding the duty along with applicable interest etc., which clearly indicates the contributory negligence on the part of the Revenue. The provisions of warehousing, particularly Section 61(1) read with proviso provides, that where the goods are likely to deteriorate , the period referred to (one year) may be reduced by the authority to such shorter period as he may deem fit. Thus, there was obligation on the part of the customs authorities also to keep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of First Warehousing Expiry date of initial warehouseing period Qty (pcs./pk gs) of goods Value (Rs.) Total Duty (Rs.) 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2. Wine 105558/13.06.2003 23.06.2003 22.06.2004 209 8,402 35,112 3. -do- 100054/11.01.2004 09.01.2004 08.01.2005 268 9,789 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that as it has relinquished the title in the said goods, thus, demand was not maintainable. Thereafter, the appellant again received a communication dated 09.12.2014 requiring to give information of the relinquishment of the title to the said goods and if the same have been accepted by the Department. The appellant in reply dated 20.12.2014 drew attention to the letters of the relinquishment mentioned hereinabove. Thereafter, the Revenue issued letter dated 24.04.2015 to the effect that the normal warehousing period under Section 61 is one year, which is extendable for further six months or any further period, subject to permission of the appropriate authority. Further, Section 72(1)(b) of the Act provides that, wherein any warehoused good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide impugned order-in-appeal has been pleased to uphold the adjudication order relying mainly on the ruling of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon 1996 (86) ELT 464 (SC), wherein it has been held that the goods, which are not removed from a warehouse within the permissible period, are treated as goods improperly removed. The importer may be called upon to pay customs duty on such goods. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant, inter alia, urges that the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon is no longer applicable as the law has gone subsequent changes. Section 68 has undergone change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under Section 68 of the Act to relinquish title to the warehoused goods, on the expiry of the period permitted under Section 61(1)(a) or the extended period under the proviso thereto? (ii) Whether the respondent company became liable to pay, with respect to warehouse goods, as provided under Section 72((1)(a) of the Act, the full amount of duty chargeable together with all penalties and interest by reason of allowing the said goods to remain in the warehouse after the expiration of the warehousing period permitted under Section 61(1)(a) or extended period under proviso to Section 61(1), despite the company intimating the Customs Department in writing the relinquishment of its title to the said goods in terms of Sections 23(2) and 68 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... count of such goods together with interest, fine and penalty, payable in respect of such goods. Sub-section (2) of Section 72 further provides that if any owner fails to pay any amount demanded under sub-section (1), the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other remedy, cause to be detained and sold, after notice to the owner with respect to such quantity of goods, as the officer may deem fit. Accordingly, prays for dismissing of the appeal and upholding the impugned order. 9. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellant have exercised their right of relinquishment, as permissible under Section 68 (as amended). However, it seems that the appellant exercised the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
