2008 (12) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;   The appellant imported chemicals in May, 2002 and filed warehousing bill of entry and warehoused the goods in public bonded warehouse. The ware housing period expired on 10-7-03, and the request for extension of warehousing period was not granted. (b)     They cleared part of the goods before the expiry of the warehousing period. (c)     The rate of duty on the impugned goods came to be lowered with effect from 1-3-05. On 21-6-05 the appellant filed bill of entry seeking clearance of the remaining 'warehoused goods' and paid under protest the duty at the rate applicable as on 10-7-03. The appellant challenged the assessment order before Commissioner (Appeals) and claimed that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is admitted that no extension of warehousing period has been granted to the appellant. Under these circumstances, the date of expiry of warehousing period has to be deemed as the date of clearance, i.e. as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon cited supra. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below : "17. The consequence of non-removal of warehoused goods within the permitted period or the permitted extension is, by virtue of the terms of Section 72, certain. The date on which it comes to end is the date relevant for determining the rate of duty. When the duty is, in fact, demanded is not relevant. The alternative submission on behalf of the appellants must, therefore, also be reject....