9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y days. This amendment was made with effect from 1-6-2001 vide Clause 106 ibid read with Notification No. 23/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 22-5-2001. For clearance of the goods from warehouse for home consumption, the appellants filed ex-bond Bills of Entry. These Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed and, accordingly, the appellants paid customs duty with interest thereon for the period from 1-6-2001 till the date of payment of duty. The appellants filed applications for refund of Rs. 15,448/- and Rs. 15,88,699/- claiming that these amounts had been paid in excess of the interest payable under Section 61(2)(ii) (as amended) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Bilaspur Central Excise Division (exercising jurisdiction over the private bonded warehouse of the appellants) rejected the refund claim of Rs. 15,448/- as per order dated 6-3-2002. By a separate order dated 5-12-2001 on the refund claim of Rs. 15,88,699/-, he disallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 13,35,094/- and allowed the rest. Aggrieved by these orders, the party preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority had three issues before it : (a) whether the appellants were entitled to have i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Karnataka High Court's decision in Bangalore Wire Rod Mills v. U.O.I. [1992 (61) E.L.T. 37 (Kar.)] wherein the imported goods were entered for warehousing prior to the 13-5-1983 amendment of Section 61 of the Customs Act and both sides agreed that the amended provision was not applicable to such goods. It has also been pointed out that the decision of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court in U.O.I v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mills [1996 (83) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.)]. Ld. Counsel has also relied on CBEC's Circular No. 62/99-Cus., dated 17-9-99. 3. Ld. DR has argued that any vested right in relation to the warehoused goods was only the right to keep the goods without payment of duty and that any interest-free period of warehousing was no substantive right at all. The latter aspect was procedural only, according to ld. DR. He has also cited the Bombay High Court's decision in Siganporia Brothers v. U.O.I. [1993 (66) E.L.T. 606 (Bom.)]. With regard to the refund claim of Rs. 101/- rejected as time-barred, ld. DR has submitted that the claim was made admittedly beyond six months from the date of payment of interest and that there is no evidence of the payment having been made under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and Circular No. 62/99-Cus., dated 17-9-99 of the CBEC has virtually accepted the above prospective operation of law. The said Circular was issued in clarification of Notification No. 30/99-Cus. (N.T.), dated 12-5-99 which provided for a graded scale of interest in respect of goods warehoused under Section 61(1)(b) of the Customs Act, which remained in warehouse beyond 6 months from the date of warehousing. After consulting the Ministry of Law, the Board clarified that the interest as revised under Notification No. 30/99-Cus. (N.T.), dated 12-5-99 was applicable in respect of 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.). 6. 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 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is anything therein showing the necessary intendment for enforcing the Rule with retrospective effect. Since the amending Rule was not retrospective, it could not adversely affect the right of those candidates who were qualified for selection and appointment on the date they applied for the post, moreover as the process of selection had already commenced when the amending Rules came into force. The amended Rule could not affect the existing rights of those candidates who were being considered for selection as they processed the requisite qualifications prescribed by the Rules before its amendment moreover construction of amending Rules should be made in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary hardship to those who have no control over the subject-matter." 7. Counsel has relied on the judgments rendered by the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Wire Rod Mills (supra). The reliance is particularly on the following observation contained in Para 6 of the High Court's judgment :- "It is common ground that as far as the present case is concerned, the amended sub-section (1) of Section 61 is not applicable, for the reason the goods were entered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
