TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pending before the Commissioner. The department had sought details of goods in working and non-working condition and the same had been submitted to the department by the appellant on 1-9-03. On 1-9-03 the Commissioner informed the appellants to pay duty on the goods in non-working condition under Section 72 of the Customs Act. Appellants on 3-9-03 abandoned and relinquished their right and title to the warehoused goods under Section 68 as amended in 2003 and sent the abandonment notice to the Chief Commissioner and others on 20-10-03. They received a letter from the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the Customs Act does not designate the Chief Commissioner as the Officer for abandonment and that they should approach the Dy. Commiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Spinning & Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. UOI - 1987 (27) E.L.T. 19 (Bom.). They further pointed out that in the case of Phoenix International Ltd. v. CC - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 527 (Tribunal) = 2004 (62) RLT 181 (T-Che) the Tribunal held that when the application for extension of warehousing period is pending consideration by the Commissioner then in that case even confirmation of demand under Section 72 without waiting for the decision for extension has been held to be invalid. Further reference is made to CCE & C v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 369 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held that relinquishment of title to the warehoused goods after expiry of warehousing period is permissible in law and it is proper. It has further be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). He also refers to Board Circular 3/03, dated 14-1-03 which permits re-export of goods under Section 69 even if the permitted period for bonding has expired. Counsel also refers to proviso to Section 68 which grants power to the owner of any warehoused goods to relinquish his title to the goods before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption has been made in respect of such goods and that he shall not be liable to pay duty thereon. 2. Learned SDR contented that as the appellants had not cleared bonded warehoused goods, they are liable to pay the duty, interest and penalty as held by the Commissioner in his detailed order. 3. On a careful consideration of the submissions made, we find that the appellants are not contestin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments cited by the appellants the confirmation of demand on the goods which were abandoned is not proper and is required to be set side. However, in terms of proviso to Section 68, they are liable to pay rent, interest and other charges in respect of goods in terms of the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Pratibha Processors - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.), liability to pay interest on warehoused goods under Section 61(2) is dependent upon the excisability or actual liability to pay duty. Therefore in terms of this judgment, the interest amount is an accessory duty as direct nexus with duty demand in terms of proviso to Section 61(2)(i) of Customs Act, interest is chargeable on the amount of duty payable at the time of clearance o....