Customs Appeal No. 91 of 2014. Case: Commr. of C. Ex., Cus. & S.T. Vs Firomenich Aromatics (India) Pvt. Ltd.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberCustoms Appeal No. 91 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: Shri A. S. Rao, Adv.
JudgesB.R. Gavai and A.S. Gadkari, JJ.
IssueCustoms Act, 1962 - Section 61
Citation2015 (322) ELT 68 (Bom)
Judgement DateMarch 23, 2015
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Order:

  1. The Appellant Revenue has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CESTAT, Ahmedabad dated 27th December 2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent who had in turn challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, Daman.

  2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Appeal are as under:

    It was found in the audit that during the period 2001-02 the Respondent had warehoused the goods beyond the period as provided under sub-section (2)(ii) of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. As such, show cause notice came to be issued to the Respondent on 19th October, 2005 calling upon it to show cause as to why interest amounting Rs. 10,80,331/- should not be demanded and as to why penalty should not be imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the issue and imposed the penalty. An appeal was preferred by the Respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). By order dated 1st February, 2008 the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the Respondents. The Respondents thereafter preferred an appeal before the CESTAT which is allowed by the impugned order. Hence, the present Appeal.

  3. Mr. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that though a limitation of one years is provided under Section 28 for taking the action, no such limitation is provided under sub-section (2) of Section 61 of the Customs Act. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the learned Tribunal has grossly erred in holding that the show cause notices were beyond limitation. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the question of law as to whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the show cause notices issued were beyond limitation, in the absence of any provision to the effect, Section 61 of the said Act arises for consideration in the present Appeal.

  4. We have perused the impugned order.

  5. The learned Tribunal while allowing the appeal has held that though no limitation is provided for under sub-section (2) of Section 61, the authorities are required to take action within a reasonable period. The learned CESTAT while allowing the appeal has relied upon the judgment of the Madras CESTAT in the case of C.C., Madras v. TVS Whirlpool Limited [1996 (86) E.L.T. 144 (Tribunal)] wherein the CESTAT has held that when no limitation is prescribed under the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT