2013 (10) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....or the development of software, for which they were imported. Also, warehousing period of certain bonded goods had expired and the unit had not obtained extension of the warehousing period for certain capital goods as required under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty liability on the said obsolete / time expired bonds and ineligible goods put together works out to Rs.27,36,259/- and interest on the same works out to Rs.1,01,671/-. The duty was calculated at the rate applicable on the date of expiry of warehousing period after allowing the depreciation. On pointing out this omission, the assessee volunteered and paid the duty amount of Rs.27,36,259/- and interest of Rs.1,01,671/- totaling to Rs.28,37,930/-, in respect of the capit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of violation by the Department and it was not voluntary. It is her submission that under the circumstances, mere payment of duty along with interest by the importer before the issuance of show-cause notice cannot be a strong ground for non-imposition of penalty. It is her submission that provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 would be applicable as the adjudicating authority has held that the goods are liable for confiscation. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would reiterate the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 5.1 There is no dispute on the facts inasmuch as both sides agree that the respondent being a STP....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the Customs Act, 1962 as the party failed to comply with the condition of obtaining extension of warehousing period and also failed to properly account for the goods. In coming to this conclusion, I rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kesoram Rayon (1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.) in which it is held that Goods are improperly removed from a warehouse under the terms of sub-section (1) if they have not been removed from the warehouse on the expiration of the permitted period or its permitted extension [Clause (b)]. In all such cases the Customs officer is empowered to demand and the importer shall pay, the full amount of duty chargeable on the goods and interest, penalties, rent and other charges thereon. If p....