TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants requested the Assistant Collector of Customs on 27-12-1975, for permission to warehouse the goods. An into-bond bill of entry was filed on 1-1-1976 and the goods were warehoused on 23-1-1976. The appellants filed appeal before the Central Board of Excise & Customs, against the Collector of Customs' order to charge countervailing duty on the goods. The appeal was allowed by the Board. The appellants also filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the order of warning passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs for alleged breach of I.T.C. regulation. That appeal was also allowed by the Collector (Appeals). Thereafter, the appellants filed an ex-bond bill of entry on 9-2-1977 and paid duty levied on that bill of entry on 26-2-1977. At the time of filing the bill of entry in November, 1975, the rate of duty applicable to the goods was 40% ad valorem under Item 72(b) of the I.T.C. At the time of clearing the goods from the warehouse on ex-bond bill of entry, the goods were assessed to duty at the rate of 60% ad valorem plus 15% ad valorem under item 84.59(1) of the C.T.A., 1975. The appellants contested this assessment on the ground that the goods s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying the duty. In this context, the relevant dates mentioned in Sections 15 & 16 are significant. The dates for the purposes of import or export duties, are the statutory dates mentioned in Section 15(1) or Section 16 and not the date of physical entry or exist. The Supreme Court had occasion to examine a similar problem in the case of M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Appellants v. B. Sen and Others, Respondents (AIR 1979 SC 675-677) in which their Lordships held that, 'it is thus the clear requirement of Cl(b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Act that the rate of duty, rate of exchange and Tariff valuation applicable to any import goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which the warehoused goods are actually removed from the warehouse'. In the light of the above judgment of the Supreme Court, the present appeal is not tenable and is accordingly rejected". 4. In the Revision Application, the appellants have stated that their case is exactly similar to M/s. Sylvania & Laxman Ltd. and the judgment of Bombay High Court is applicable to their case. The High Court has held that the goods were liable to duty at the rate prevailing on the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The learned advocate has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside with direction to refund the excess duty paid. 6. Shri D.K. Saha has argued that under Section 49 of the Act, the imported goods, which have been entered for home consumption, may be stored in a warehouse pending clearance, but such goods shall not be deemed to be warehoused goods for the purpose of this Act and the provisions of Chapter IX of the Act shall not apply to such goods. No bond is executed for storing the goods in a warehouse under Section 49. In this case, the goods were not warehoused under Section 49 on a home consumption bill of entry. The goods were permitted to be warehoused under Section 60 of the Customs Act at the request of the appellants on their executing a bond and filing an into-bond bill of entry as required under Section 59 of the Act. The goods were subsequently cleared by the appellants from the bonded warehouse for home consumption by presenting an ex-bond bill of entry as required under Section 68 of the Act. Having done all these things, the learned advocate cannot now say that the goods were bonded under Section 49 of the Act. Shri Saha has further stated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich the goods were actually removed from the bonded warehouse under Section 68 of the Act. These facts clearly prove that the goods were bonded under Chapter IX (Warehousing) of the Customs Act and not under Section 49 which falls under Chapter VII of the Act. Further, the learned advocate has not been able to show either from the appellant's letter dated 27-12-1975 or from any other evidence that the goods were stored in the warehouse under Section 49 of the Act. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate that the goods were kept in the warehouse under Section 49 or that the provisions of Section 15(1)(a) of the Act are applicable to the goods. 8.  We shall now deal with the appellant's original contention that the goods were assessable @ 40% ad valorem, which was the rate in force when the goods entered the territorial waters of India. During the hearing before us, Shri Nanavati has stated that the goods entered the Indian Customs waters on 4-12-1975. The appellants relied upon the judgments of Bombay High Court in the cases of (a) Synthetics and Chemicals Limited [1981 E.L.T. 414 (Bom.)] and (b) Sylvania and Laxman Limited in sup....