Amended warehousing rules govern later extension requests, while duty demands after expiry may issue without prior notice.

Applications for extension of warehousing are governed by the rule in force on the date of the application, so an amendment reducing the permissible period applies to later requests and bars extension beyond the revised maximum. Once the warehousing period has expired, duty becomes payable on that date and a demand may be raised without a prior show cause notice where the duty liability is not otherwise in dispute. A demand is not invalid merely because it is addressed to an accounts officer rather than the importer, if the error is an obvious misdescription and the recipient's liability is clear from the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended warehousing rule applied to applications for extension made after the amendment came into force, so that no further extension beyond the reduced maximum period could be granted; (ii) whether a demand for duty raised on expiry of the warehousing period required a prior show cause notice; (iii) whether the demand was invalid because it was addressed to the Chief Accounts Officer rather than to the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the amended warehousing rule applied to applications for extension made after the amendment came into force, so that no further extension beyond the reduced maximum period could be granted.

Analysis: The original rule allowed a longer warehousing arrangement for tobacco, but the amendment brought in by the notifications reduced the initial period and limited extension. The decisive factor was that the applications for extension were made after the amendment had come into force. A request for extension is discretionary and must be considered according to the rule in force on the date of the application. The earlier rule could not govern those later applications as if the amendment had never taken effect.

Conclusion: The amended rule governed the extension applications, and the appellants were not entitled to any extension beyond the maximum period then permitted.

Issue (ii): Whether a demand for duty raised on expiry of the warehousing period required a prior show cause notice.

Analysis: The warehousing period had already expired when the duty was demanded. Once the permitted period ended, the authorities were entitled to raise the demand for duty due on that date. The demand was not a case requiring prior notice before issuance, and the appellants did not dispute the quantity of tobacco or the duty payable as on the date of demand.

Conclusion: No prior show cause notice was necessary before issuing the demand.

Issue (iii): Whether the demand was invalid because it was addressed to the Chief Accounts Officer rather than to the appellants.

Analysis: The objection was not raised at the earliest stage and was inconsistent with the appellants' own reply, which proceeded on the footing that the demands related to their warehoused tobacco. The mistake in addressing the demand was treated as an oversight and did not affect its validity.

Conclusion: The demand was not invalid on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The lower orders were upheld because the amended warehousing regime applied, and the procedural objections failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for extension of warehousing made after an amendment to the governing rule must be decided under the amended rule in force on the date of application, and a duty demand issued after expiry of the permitted warehousing period does not require a prior show cause notice.

---