2008 (7) TMI 632

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and T. Ramesh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -  Appeal No. C/233/04 is against a demand of interest for the period of overstay of warehoused goods, while the other two appeals are against denial of refund of amounts of such interest paid by the appellants. Under Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 61 of the Act. A dispute arose between the appellants and the department as to whether the amendment was applicable to the goods warehoused prior to the date of amendment. According to department, for instance, the reduced warehousing period of 30 days would be applicable to goods which continued to be warehoused as on 1-6-2001 (date of the relevant amendment). According to the importer, the l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....des and considering their submissions, we note that the above issue stands settled in favour of the appellants by the judgment of the Apex Court in UOI v. Bangalore Wire Rod Mills, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 251 (S.C), whereby the view taken by the Karnakata High Court in Bangalore Wire Rod Mills v UOI, 1992 (61) E.L.T. 37 (Kar.) that the warehousing period applicable would be the period in force on the dat....