TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inquishment of title of part (balance) goods lying in the warehouse under warehouse B/E No. 5714432 dt.24.03.2018. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in business of providing drilling rigs on hire basis to various on shore oil explorers in India, who operate under Government/ONGC contracts. 3. Vide Warehouse Bill of Entry (WBE) No.5714432 dt.24.03.018 the appellants warehoused imported 81 packages (gross weight of 581.630 MTs) of 'Equipment/Component for Land Rig #20 in Knockdown condition, Bunk House Two Main Office Unit' under CTH 8430 4900. 4. After assessment for bond purposes, out of charge for warehouse was given on 23.05.2018 with permission by proper officer on 24.05.2018. 5. The appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antee vide letter dt.07.12.2019. 12. A demand notice (SCN) dt.13.01.2021 was issued demanding the full duty amount of Rs.1,64,73,574/- under section 72(1)(b) and (d) of the Act, to which the appellants replied vide submissions that due to continuing financial crunch and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, they are not in a position to furnish any bank guarantee, issuance of which requires equivalent deposits at bank as there are no funds available with them. A written plea was also made for waiver of bank guarantee. 13. During the hearing, the appellant relinquished their title of the goods requesting the Adjudicating Authority for disposal of goods by Auction. The prayers were refused as irrelevant holding that under the provisions of sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proviso to said section allows an importer to relinquish the title just before the stage (c) above and in present matters even stage (a) was not completed. C. That the decision in CC, Bangalore vs I2 Technologies Software Pvt Ltd (supra) is squarely applicable as in said matters title was relinquished after provisions for such relinquishment were incorporated in 2003. D. That Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Kesoram Rayon (supra) firstly relates to determination of rate of duty when goods are deemed as cleared on date of expiry of bond. Secondly, the decision is rendered for goods warehoused prior to date of amendment in section 68 i.e., when rights of relinquishment as statutorily incorporated in section 68. Thirdly, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) Videocon International Ltd vs UOI [2002 (9) TMI 125 (Bom.)] b) PSI Data Systems Ltd vs CC, Bangalore [2006 (202) ELT 316 (Tri-Bang)] c) Allied Fibres Ltd vs CC, Mumbai [2014 (309) ELT 535 (Tri-Mum.)] 17. Having considered the rival contentions, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) have erred by not taking notice of the subsequent amendments made in section 68 wherein proviso was inserted by Finance Act 2003 w.e.f. 14.05.2003. The said proviso reads as follows: "Provided that the owner of any warehoused goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption has been made in respect of such goods, relinquish his title to the goods upon payment of rent, interest, other charges and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rest' appearing in the text of the proviso. 3. In this regard it is clarified that the word 'interest' appearing in the said proviso, does not relate to 'interest accrued on the said duty till the date of such relinquishment' but relates to interest on other dues such as warehouse charges, rent etc." 22. Upon careful reading of section 68, as amended by the provision for relinquishment of title to warehoused goods inserted w.e.f. 14.05.2003 and the subsequent amendment made in the year 2016 to remove other charges and fees from its provisions, it is clear that the said proviso has extended the time available to the owner/importer of warehoused goods for relinquishment of title till or before an order for clea....