LML LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order -in -appeal dated 1 -10 -2004, wherein it was held that the appellants are liable to pay interest on the warehoused goods and their refund claim was rejected.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants imported goods and warehoused them as per provision of the Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said Section provided for interest free warehousing for a period of one year. The interest free period of one year in the Section 61, was reduced to six months by Notification No. 30/99 -Customs -(N.T.), dated 12 -5 -99. The Said notification came into effect from 12 -5 -99 itself. The appellant's goods which were warehoused prior to 12 -5 -99, were cleared by appellants, on which they were directed to pay interest for the period of beyond six months of warehousing, relying upon the newly inserted provisions. The appellants paid the interest and subsequently filed a refund claim for the excess interest charged by the authorities. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on 2 counts, one that the interest charged is as per the provisions of the amended Section and that the appellant has not produced any documentary evidence to support that the incidence of the amount has not been passed on to the buyer, on an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) has also come to the same conclusion. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits, that, the interest charged on the goods of the appellant is wrong as, when the appellants warehoused the goods they were given a specific interest free period as per assessment done on the yellow Bill of Entry and the same could not be reduced by the insertion of Sub -section vide Notification No. 30/99 -Custom (N.T.), dated 12 -5 -99. It is his submission that the reduced interest free period will apply only to the goods warehoused on or after 12 -5 -99. For this proposition he relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. v. CCE Raipur 2004 (65) RLT 147 (CESTAT -Del).