Page 242 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

224 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

M/s. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore/respondent is the
manufacture of textile machinery parts falling under Central Excise Tar-
iff, 1985. They are maintaining a private Customs Bonded Warehouse in
their premises, where imported goods are stored without payment of
Customs Duties and cleared on payment of appropriate Customs Duty
through P.D. account. The goods so cleared were used captively by the
assessee in the manufacture of final products. Under Section 61(1) of the
Customs Act, the imported goods could be warehoused by the importer
without having to pay interest on duty for a specified period. On expiry,
the goods shall ordinarily be removed on payment of duty without in-
terest. However, interest will have to be paid for any period of overstay
of the goods in the warehouse. The interest shall be paid at such rate as
specified under Section 47 of the Act. Originally, the warehousing period
was one year, which was reduced to six months and further reduced to
30 days. The goods imported by the respondents remained warehoused
for a fairly long period beyond the warehousing period and it was dur-
ing this period of overstay of the warehoused goods that the above
amendments were brought to Section 61 of the Act. Dispute arose be-
tween the Department and respondent. According to department, the
reduced warehousing period of 30 days would be applicable to goods
which continued to be warehoused as on 1-6-2001. According to the im-
porter, the law as it stood on the date of warehousing of the goods
would continue to govern the warehousing period. Despite this dispute,
in two cases of warehousing, the importer paid the interest in terms of
the departmental view. Later on, they filed refund claims and the same
came to be rejected by the original authority and the decision of that au-
thority came to be sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal
Nos. C/118/03 and C/243/04 are against the orders of the Commission-
er (Appeals). In another case of warehousing, the importer did not pay
the interest, demanded by the department. The original authority con-
firmed the demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) sustained the
same. The appellate Commissioner’s order is under challenge in Appeal
No. C/233/04. After hearing both sides, CESTAT, Chennai, allowed Ap-
peal No. C/233/04.
3. Out of three cases, two cases relate to refund of interest already paid
by the assessee and the other is, against the very demand of interest. CESTAT,
Madras, by common Final Order Nos. 757 to 759 of 2008, dated 23-7-2008, dis-
posed of the appeals against the order made in Appeal Nos. C/233/04,
C/118/03 & C/243/04, in favour of the respondent.
4. Aggrieved against the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai, Com-
missioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore has preferred the instant
Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, on the following substantial questions of law :-
“(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the time-limit fixed for
claiming refund of interest under Section 27 of the Customs Act,
1962 is not applicable to the party in dispute by relying on a outdat-
ed Boards Circular No. 475/39/90-Cus., VII, dated 8-8-1990, which
was not relevant after the “Customs Amendment Act, 1991”, came
into existence which has brought interest into the purview of Sec-
tion 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 also along with duty?

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  242