TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espect of abandoning of the imported goods under Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, the Chief Commissioner informed the respondents that the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport) has been asked to take possession of the goods and auctioning the same. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 16.05.2002 was issued by the Superintendent of Customs, Pondicherry, proposing the demand of entire amount of duty along with interest and penalty on the warehoused goods under Section 72(1) of the said Act, on the ground that the respondents had not removed the warehoused goods from their private bonded warehouse at the expiration of the warehousing period. The Adjudicating Authority ordered for enforcement of the provisions of double duty Bond executed by the respondents and demanded the duty to the tune of Rs. 24,52,978/- on the warehoused goods under Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962. He has also demanded interest under Section 61 till the date of payment of duty. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). By the impugned order dated 10.08.2004, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. Hence, the Revenue filed this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishment of the goods prior to amendment of Section 68 of the Act, they are eligible to get the benefit. He relied upon the following decisions in support of his argument. 1. CC. Bangalore Vs. PSI Data Systems Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 55 (Kar.) 2. CCE, Surat Vs. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. 2000 (118) ELT 369 (Tri.) 3. CC, Bangalore, Vs. i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. 2007 (217) ELT 176 (Kar.) 4. RPG Cables Ltd. CC (Imp.), Mumbai 2007 (212) ELT 538 (Tri.-Mum.) 5. Swastik Rubber Products Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs 1989 (40) ELT 391 (Tri.) He further submits that the goods were not available to the assessees since they were already auctioned and therefore, demand of duty is not sustainable. He relied upon the case of CC (Imp.) Mumbai Vs. Express Industries - 2009-TIOL-141-CESTAT-MUM, Mine Safety Appliance (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Sheva - 2007 (21!) ELT 319 (Tri.-Mum.). 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the provisions of section 13, where it is shown) to the satisfaction of the (Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs) that any imported goods have been lost [(otherwise than as a result of pilferage)] or destroyed, at any time before clearance for home consumption, the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] shall remit the duty on such goods. [(2) The owner of any imported goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption under section 47 or an order for permitting the deposit of goods in a warehouse under section 60 has been made, relinquish his title to the goods and thereupon he shall not be liable to pay the duty thereon] [Provided that the owner of any such imported goods shall not be allowed to relinquish his title to such goods regarding which an offence appears to have been committed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.] 6. The Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that the relinquishing of the warehoused goods permitted after amendment of Section 68 as on 14.05.2003. The relevant portion of Section 68 is reproduced below:- &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. It is seen that while issuing show cause notice, the proper officer had not taken into consideration of the permission of the Chief Commissioner of Customs to take possession of the goods for auctioning the same. The main contention of the Revenue is that relinquishing of the goods under Section 68(2) cannot have retrospective effect. We find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of PSI Data Systems Ltd.(supra) while dealing with the question of law, as to whether, the amended Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, which came into operation only from 14.05.2003, when the transaction in question had taken place much earlier to the date of commencement of the said amended section. The Hon'ble High Court observed that there cannot be a bar to the assessee to make use of the amended provision since the case of the assessee was still pending before the authorities. It has been held that the amended provisions would ensure benefit of the assessee as the intention of the legislature is to give benefit to the assessee to grant exemption in respect of duty payable by the assessee. Therefore, the question was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In the pre....