TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 337
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... March 2020. 2. The brief facts are the appellant after import of the goods, deposited them in a public bonded warehouse. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, when the commercial/economic activities were physically affected, appellant could not proceed with the proposed construction of office complex and could not proceed the goods for home consumption. Thereafter, vide letter dated 19.02.2021, the appellant sought extension of the warehousing period due to COVID-19 pandemic. However, respondent rejected the request and issued show cause demanding duty and interest. Thereafter, Adjudication Authority proceeded with the adjudication proceedings and issued Order-in-Original on 30.03.2002. On 18.04.2022 appellant submitted another request for extension ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for extension of Limitation-2022(56) GSTL 385(SC) referring to its earlier Orders dated 23.03.2020 and 27.04.2021 has issued Order dated 10.01.2022 by taking Cognizance for extension of Limitation period of limitation prescribed under general law of limitation or any special laws due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Learned Counsel further submits that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable and binding on all authorities in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution. The Counsel for the Appellant further submits that the lower authorities could not have been completely oblivious of the COVID-19 pandemic, the difficulties ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008 (222) ELT. 398 (Tri-Kolkata)] 7. Learned AR reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that since the appellant failed to comply with the statutory conditions, goods are liable for confiscation as held by adjudication and Appellate authorities. 8. Heard both sides and perused the records. 9. The issue in the present appeal is limited to illegality in clearance of bonded warehouse goods within the stipulated period of time. As per the impugned order, it is evident that the appellant made a request for extension of period and pleaded that there is no willful negligence on the part of appellant to clear the goods during the warehousing period and it is only due to the COVID-19 situation. As per the Circular issued by the B....