JSW STEEL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant -Assessee herein entered into a contract dated 10 -4 -1996 with one M/s. China Iron & Steel Industry and Trade Group Corporation, Beijing, China, for supply and installation of Air Separation Plant (ASP). When the goods arrived in India, the Appellant filed Bill of Entry on 25 -6 -1997 for warehousing of these goods. The same was permitted on execution of required bond by the Assessee. There was a specific period allowed within which the Appellant had to remove the goods for home consumption. These goods were removed from time to time. Since the Appellant could not remove the goods within the original period of warehousing, he sought extensions thereof as well. The extended period expired on 31 -3 -2002. During this period, the goods which were warehoused were removed substantially but still some goods remained to be cleared. As these goods were not cleared by the period permitted, the remaining goods were treated as unauthorised goods warehoused. It resulted in Show Cause Notice dated 30 -3 -2005 whereby a demand of duty of Rs. 3,07,65,945/ - was raised in respect of uncleared goods which lay in the warehouse beyond the extended period by invoking the provisions of Sec. 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The demand raised in the Show Cause Notice along with interest and penalty was confirmed. We may mention here that the duty amount was paid by the Appellant on 29 -8 -2003 but without any interest. This amount was adjusted in the Show Cause Notice itself. The Appellant preferred appeal against the said order before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which also dismissed the appeal vide orders dated 5 -4 -2007 [ : 2007 (215) E.L.T. 236 (Tri. - Chennai)].

(2.) Mr. S.K. Bagaria, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, fairly conceded that the case is covered by the judgment of this Court in 'Kesoram Rayon v/s. Collector of Customs, Calcutta' : 1996 (5) SCC 576 : 1996 (86) E.L.T. 464 (S.C.). However, he endeavored to argue that the said judgment does not depict the law correctly and, therefore, made a fervent plea to refer the matter to Larger Bench.

(3.) After hearing learned Senior Counsel for both the sides on this aspect, we are of the view that Kesoram Rayon lays down the law correctly and there is no need to refer the matter to Larger Bench.