2005 (12) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....990. There was no response from the Department to the request for extension of the warehousing period. On 11-3-1991, the appellants relinquished the title of the goods under section 23(2) of the Customs Act. The department did not accept the same. There was protracted legal battle between the appellants and the department on the issue. The lower authority in his order dated 23-10-2000 rejected the appellants request for re-exporting the goods and confirmed the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 24,03,516/-. Further he imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,000/- The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original. The appellants have strongly challenged the Order-in-Appeal. 3. Shri G. Shivadass, ld. Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Gan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in respect of the imported goods when they relinquished the warehouse. They relied on the following case laws :- (1) Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bangalore — 2006 (193) E.L.T. 341 (Tribunal) (F.O. No. 1468, dated 23-8-2005) (2) Decorative Laminates v. CCE (F.O. Nos. 1698-1699/05, dated 30-9-2005) (iv) The appellants initial action of relinquishment under section 23 was not allowed by the Hon'ble HC of Karnataka. At that point of time there was no provision to relinquish title in respect of goods lying in the warehouse. Such facility has been extended to the importer only on 14-2-2003 when section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 was amended. Therefore the order of the HC would not be a bar against them to relinquish their title....