TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (5) TMI 33
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections 59 and 72 of the Act. 2.The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of specialised basic refractory bricks, fire bricks and allied products in its factory located at Lathikata in the district of Sundargarh. For the purpose of manufacturing the said products it imports various raw materials on consignments through different ports which are ultimately transported to its factory. The petitioner is permitted to house those consignments in a private warehouse licenced under Section 58 of the Act and after payment of customs duty lifts the raw materials from the warehouse as and when necessary. It is the allegation of the petitioner that Assistant Collec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may be removed. Sub-section (2) of Section 61 with which we are concerned states that if any warehoused goods remain in a warehouse beyond the period stipulated or granted by way of extension by the competent authority, interest at such rate not exceeding 18 per cent per annum shall be payable on the amount of duty on the warehoused goods for the period commencing from the expiry of the period stipulated or ordered till the date of clearance of the goods from the warehouse. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to indicate as to how the charge of the interest contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Act impinges Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The reason for charging interest on the amount of dut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reason for rejecting the said contention is simple. The principle that the decision of an authority or Tribunal could be vitiated if some of the reasons in support of the decision turn out to be unsustainable applies to cases in which the conclusion is reached on subjective satisfaction of the authority of Tribunal because in such cases, it would be difficult for a superior Court to find out which of the reasons brought about such satisfaction. But in a case where the decision is based on objective facts and evidence and if it is found that some of the reasons are valid and some are irrelevant or unsustainable, a Superior Court would not interfere because the decision can be upheld on the basis of valid reasons. In the case at hand, deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e No. 23/70 and invoice No. 21/79. We are not in a position to accept this contention of the Revenue. The petitioner in paragraphs 4(i) and 4(j) of the writ petition has specifically stated that assessments made by the Assistant Collector in respect of invoice Nos. 23/70 and 21/79 have been set aside in appeal by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals) who directed de novo assessment and no fresh order of assessment has yet been made. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue this averment of the petitioner has not been specifically denied. On the contrary, it has been stated that the averments made in paragraphs 4(i) and 4(j) of the writ petition are matters of record and the said orders (meaning Annexures....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals), Calcutta and the appellate authority after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector held 5,85,000 Dollars to be the correct transaction value and against the said order of the appellate authority, the Assistant Collector has filed appeal before the CEGAT. It appears that the said order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) is at Annexure-9 who held that the FOB value of 5,85,000/- Dollars to be the correct transaction value for the purpose of assessment having recorded the said finding, he has set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Thus, the order of the Assistant Collector having been set aside in appeal and the Revenue having failed to produce any order of the CEGAT in the matter, we are of the opinion ....