ASHOK LEYLAND LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 42 appeals are against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals), who, vide the order impugned before us relying on the decision in the case of Kesoram Rayons vs. C.C, Calcutta reported in 1996 (86) ELT 464 (SC), held, that in the instant case, the permitted warehousing period was one month in terms of the provisions of erstwhile section 6(1)(b) of the Customs Act. There was no provision for extension of said period of one month. Though it is the case of the appellants that in the absence of any demand notice from the Department requiring payment of duty or interest from the appellant, the appellant be deemed to have been permitted to keep the goods in the warehouse, he was unable to subscribe to the above contention of the appellant. Extension of the normal warehousing period follows a specific order in this behalf by the Competent Authority and is not a matter of presumption or inferance. In the above circumstances, it will be only logical to think that the warehousing period in all these 42 out of 44 cases had expired after one month of bonding of the goods and he found:

(2.) We have heard Shri R. Raghavan, Ld. Counsel for the Appellants and Shri S.Sudarsan, Ld. JDR for the Revenue and considered the submissions and find that, -

(3.) In view of our findings, we set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals with consequential benefit. Ordered accordingly.