TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that appellant warehoused the imported goods in the private bonded warehouse during the period January, 2001 to May, 2001. At the time of warehousing the goods, interest free period was provided for 180 days. However, as per the notification No. 23/2001-Cus(NT) dated 22/5/2001, effective from 1/6/2001, the interest was chargeable after expiry of bond period of 30 days. The appellant had cleared warehoused the goods during the period June, 2001 to December, 2001 and interest was paid considering 180 days as interest free period. The Revenues contention is that since the goods remained bonded after issuance of Notification 23/2001-Cus(NT), the interest free period is ava....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al in case of Poddar Pigments Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur[2005(191) ELT 759(Tri. Del)]. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the goods were warehoused prior to issue of Notification No. 23/2001-Cus(NT) during that time the statue has mandated interest free bonding period of 180 days. Under that provision the appellant has executed the bond and warehoused the goods. Though the Notification No. 23/2001-Cus reduced period of 180 days to 30 days w.e.f. 1/6/2001 but goods which already warehoused prior to that date, will not be governed by amended notification, particularly f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by them under yellow Bill of Entry before 12-5-99, while assessing the said Bill of Entry the assessing authority had clearly indicated on the Bills of entries about the interest free period available to the appellant. I observe that the said Bills of Entries clearly specify the date from which interest shall be payable. This assessment was done by the Customs authorities at Mumbai and the goods were warehoused at Bonded warehouse, Kanpur. The reduction of interest free period by the Customs authorities at Kanpur while debonding, to my mind, would amount reassessment of the Bill of Entries, which could not have be done without following the proper of process of Law. Be that as it may, a division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehousing. After consulting the Ministry of Law, the Board clarified that the interest as revised under Notification No. 30/99-Cus. (N.T.), dated 12-5-99 was applicable in revised of goods warehoused prior to the said date but only from the expiry of six months or 12-5-99 whichever is later. Significantly, in respect of goods warehoused prior to 12-5-99 the revised interest rate was not made applicable for a period of six months from the date of warehousing. This rule of prospective operation appears to be equally good in respect of Notification No. 23/2001-Cus. (N.T.). In the case of J.K. Synthetics (supra), the question arose whether, in respect of goods imported and warehoused prior to 13-5-1983 (the date on which Section 61 was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 1-6-2001. We have no doubt in our mind that any different view on the point will militate against the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in P. Mahendrans case (supra)" To my mind the ratio of the division Benches, decision in above paras clearly covers the issue in this case. 6. In view of the above findings and the circumstances the interest imposed and demanded from appellant, for the warehoused goods before 12-5-99, by invoking amended provisions of Section 61 of Customs Act, is not a correct legal position. Further, it is fairly admitted by the appellant's counsel, that they had not produced any evidence regarding the unjust enrichment before the lower authorities, but seeks liberty to do so, before the adjudicatin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one year expired. In other words, interest has been charged for the extended period in excess of one year. This is clearly permissible under the amended Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, which has been extracted in para 5 of the order proposed by Member (Judicial). This interest is nothing but a payment for delayed payment of duty because of extension of normal period of warehousing. The Department has correctly and very justifiably charged interest on the amount of duty in respect of the period which is beyond the original warehousing period of one year. There is no illegality involved in the same, nor this amounts to retrospective effect of the amendment to Section 61(2) of the Customs Act. As is clear in the present case, the interest ha....