Bharat Tissues Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 162-2007 dated 26/12/2007 passed by Commissioner of CUSTOMS , BANGALORE-I( Appeal) ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Bharat Tissues Pvt Ltd No.54, Bommasandra Industrial Area, Bommasandra, Bangalore BANGALORE - 00 KARNATAKA Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

None For the Appellant

Shri Isla, AuthorisedRrepresentative For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 06/03/2015

Date of Decision: 06/03/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20589 / 2015

Per : B.S.V.MURTHY

Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. This is the 4th time the matter is coming up before this Tribunal. On all the 3 earlier occasions also, nobody was present nor was there any request for adjournment. Today also nobody is present nor is there any request for adjournment. Accordingly appeal is taken up for decision.

2. The facts in brief are as under:

The proceedings started with the issue of a notice dt. 16/02/2001 issued to the appellant. In Annexure 1 to the show-cause notice, the stock position of the raw material was indicated and the stock in respect of bond No.3/99 was shown and duty involved was indicated. The show-cause notice was issued on the ground that the goods had not been cleared within the time provided for storage in the warehouse as per the provisions of Customs Act relating to warehousing. The Commissioner had refused the request for extension made by the appellants on 30/12/2005. The ground taken for rejection of request for extension was that an offence case has been registered and adjudicated taking a view that the goods have been clandestinely removed. The proceedings initiated on 16/02/2001 to demand duty on the ground that the appellant had not taken extension came to be adjudicated confirming the demand for customs duty under Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962 and this dispute has travelled upto the Tribunal.

3. Even though appellants have cited several grounds such as principles of natural justice, distortion of facts etc. etc., I do not think that I am required to consider all these submissions in view of the legal provisions in the Customs Act, 1962. According to Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962, if any warehoused goods are not removed from a warehouse on the expiration of period during which such goods are permitted under Section 61 to remain in the warehouse. the proper officer may demand duty and the owner of such goods shall forthwith pay, the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with all penalties, rent, interest and other charges payable in respect of such goods. In view of the specific provisions in the Section 72, once extension of time sought for storing goods in the warehouse is refused, the duty and interest and other liabilities automatically arise. Therefore the impugned order cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the appellant has no merits and is rejected.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.

3