By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 08, 2016: M/S Modi Cement Ltd. imported a consignment of 'roller pair assembly' and filed an in-bond bill of entry dated 2.12.1998; the same was assessed and the goods were permitted to be deposited in warehouse on 26.12.1988 for a period of one year i.e. upto 25.12.1989. Subsequently, due to financial problems, the said Modi Cement Ltd . did not clear the consignment and was taken over by the appellantwith all assets and liabilities.

Appellant filed ex-bond bill of entry on 19.3.2001 and sought clearance of the consignment which was allowed but subject to discharge of duty liability at the rate prevalent on 19.3.2001. Appellant contested the said findings on the ground that the goods should have been assessed at the rate which was prevalent when they were bonded.

Both the lower authorities did not agree with this contention and, therefore, the appellant is before the CESTAT.

It is inter alia submitted that due to the circumstances under which the goods were cleared belatedly by the appellant, they had filed an application/representation before the CBEC for waiver of the interest liability, which is still not disposed of.

The AR submitted that the issue is now squarely settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Rayon vs. CC, Calcutta - 2002-TIOL-818-SC-CUS, which has been followed by the Bench in the case of Standard Inds. Ltd . vs. CC, Mumbai - 2016-TIOL-772-CESTAT-MUM.

The Bench observed -

+ It is undisputed that the goods were warehoused on 26.12.1988 and they were to be cleared on 25.12.1989 as per the order passed on the in-bond bill of entry. Whatever may be the circumstances with which the goods cannot be cleared from the bond, the duty liability which has been fastened upon the appellant is in accordance with the law as decided or settled by the apex court in the case of Kesoram Rayon (supra). Their Lordships have held that once the goods which are warehoused are not cleared within the period granted or the extension thereof, the goods are to be considered as improperly removed from the warehouse, hence demand of the duty in the case in hand is correct, as there is nothing on record to show that appellant had sought extension for removal of the goods from the warehouse and it was permitted. In the absence of any such document, we find that the confirmed demands are correct. The impugned order to that extent is upheld.

+ As regards the interest, we find that the appellant had made representation before the CBEC for waiver of the interest due to circumstances under which the goods were stuck up in the bonded warehouse and we were informed that the said representation is still pending. On specific mention of the learned counsel, we find that the interest liability will arise on the appellant only as and when the CBEC disposes the representation filed by the appellant.

The impugned order was upheld and the appeal was disposed of.

(See 2016-TIOL-3177-CESTAT-MUM)