2006 (2) TMI 404

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dated 22-10-91. The initial warehousing period is 5 years in respect of certain goods. The appellants applied for extension of the warehousing period to the Chief Commissioner. No communication was received from the Chief Commissioner but the jurisdictional officer demanded duty on the warehoused goods under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further interest at the rate of 29% was imposed. A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed under the provisions of Sections 72 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants were aggrieved over the order of the Original Authority. Hence they appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has held that the goods were lying unused beyond the warehousing period and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowed in letter of spirit and no duty was confirmed except a proposal by virtue of the show cause in the circumstances of the case." He pointed out that the lower authority in the next paragraph takes a different stand on the ground that these goods cannot be called as warehoused goods on account of the fact that warehousing period has expired. While coming to the above conclusion, the lower authority has relied on the Apex Court decision in the case of Kesoram Rayon v. CCE, Kolkata [1996 (86) E.L.T. 464]. He said that the case of Pradeep Ullal is clearly applicable to the present case as the CEGAT has held that the Commissioner is bound to consider the extension application even if it is belatedly made. He also pointed out that till no....