2016 (2) TMI 964 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds decision on interest liability during appeal

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner's order, instructing the adjudicating authority to decide on the extension request ... Demand - goods warehoused in public bonded warehouse under Section 60 - failure to clear the goods within the stipulated period - request for extension of bond period - Held that: - the facts of the case are not in dispute. Further against the order of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of their application for extension of time was challenged by the Revenue before this Tribunal. In that circumstance, it was not the fault of the respondent. Therefore, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that for the intervening period the respondent are not liable to pay interest. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. In these circumstances, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Extension of time for storage of imported goods in a public bonded warehouse under Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Liability of the respondent to pay interest for the period when the appeal was pending before the Tribunal.Extension of Time for Storage Issue:The respondent imported goods and warehoused them but failed to clear within the stipulated period, leading to duty assessment, interest, and penalty imposition. The respondent appealed, citing an application for extension of time for storage, pending consideration. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) directed a re-look based on the extension request outcome. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner's order, instructing the adjudicating authority to decide on the extension request. The respondent sought goods release, mentioning the extension application and subsequent re-export requests not considered during adjudication. The Adjudicating Authority allowed goods clearance upon payment of redemption fine, duty, interest, and penalty. The respondent contested this order.Liability to Pay Interest Issue:The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest benefit for the period when the appeal was pending before the Tribunal, a decision challenged by the Revenue. The ld. AR argued that interest is payable for duty payment, thus the respondent should pay interest. The respondent's counsel supported the findings in the impugned order. After hearing both parties and reviewing submissions, it was noted that the facts were undisputed. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's order regarding the extension request consideration. The Tribunal found no fault on the respondent's part, agreeing with the Commissioner that no interest liability existed for the intervening period. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.