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

....arehousing period on 26-2-1990. 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 fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ved from the warehouse. The appellants have relinquished the title to the goods on 24-2-2004 and the goods were still lying in the warehouse and had not been removed there from. In terms of amended section 68 they would not be required to pay any duty 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 ....