TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (7) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter assessment on two Ex-Bond Bills of Entry, the appellant company paid duty on 6-11-1982. The Out-of-Customs Charge i.e. endorsement regarding date of removal of the goods from the warehouse was shown by the Inspector of Customs, Incharge of Bonded Warehouse as 5-11-1982. He has given direction on 6-11-1982 to the Warehouse-keeper to deliver the packages to the importer. It is also asserted by the appellant company that the goods, being heavy and bulky, were not actually in the warehouse under lock, but were lying in the open near the bonded warehouse. Following entries on the reverse of the two Bills of Entry were also found :- Bill of Entry No. 11/5-11-82 Delivered undermentioned goods to the importer: Packa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the department issued demands for differential duty on account of the increase in the rate of auxiliary duty, in terms of the provisions laid down in Section 15(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Superintendent of Customs issued two demands of Rs. 1,07,563.85 (Auxiliary duty Rs. 99,596.16 + countervailing duty Rs. 7,967.69) and Rs. 83,450.91 (auxiliary duty Rs. 77,269.36 + countervailing duty Rs. 6,181.55). Assistant Collector by his order-in-original confirmed the demands of duty pertaining to auxiliary duty Rs. 99,596.16 and Rs. 77,269.36 respectively against two Bills of Entry. No order was passed in respect of less charge for countervailing duty in view of the matter, in respect of the entire import, pending before the Supreme Court in Ci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law, date of delivery of the goods by the Warehouse-keeper to the importer of the goods should be treated as the date of removal of the goods from the warehouse. For this purpose, he relies on Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Titagarh Jute Factory v. Asstt. Collector of Constoms for Import, Bond Department, Calcutta and Others [1988 (36) E.L.T. 55]. In any case, he submitted that the goods were lying admittedly outside the warehouse. Therefore, delivery of the goods by the Warehouse-keeper to the importer completed the act of removal from the warehouse. In this connection, he states that the facts of the case are similar to the facts in the case of Titagarh Jute Factory, mentioned supra. He draws attention to the following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct. The petitioner asked for the return of the keys of the bonded warehouse as they had surrendered the godown as being debonded but no action was taken by the Respondent No. 1 for the respondents. The respondents were simply required to hand over the keys of the godown to the petitioners to signify the symbolic clearance of the goods from the bonded , warehouse." 2.1 He also submits that the ratio of the decision in Prakash Cotton Mills would not be applicable because the facts in that case are totally unlike the facts in the present case. ln Prakash Cotton Mills, supra, clearance on ex-bond bills of entry was sought subsequent to enhancement in duty. Therefore, the ratio of Supreme Court's judgment a the case of Prakash Cotton Mills ca....