Case Law Details
DCM Hyundai Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that demand of interest under section 61(2)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 unsustainable as SCN is time barred.
Facts- The appellant, was earlier a 100% EOU, had applied for De-Bonding of the unit into DTA vide letter dt. 29.11.2006 and paid appropriate duties on the capital goods, imported raw materials, finished stock, indigenous capital goods lying as stock. It was noticed that certain raw materials were lying in stock beyond the warehousing period of three years as prescribed under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant paid duty on raw materials lying in stock to the tune of Rs. 40,89,232/- along with duties on other items. The department was of the view that the duty paid on raw materials warehoused beyond the period of three years was liable to interest under Section 61 (2) (i) of Customs Act, 1962 at the rate of 15% per annum as per Notification No. 28/2002- Cus. (NT) dated 13.05.2002.
SCN was issued to the appellant u/s. 28 of the Custom Act, 1962 proposing to demand an amount of 10,88,557/- as interest and also proposing to impose penalty u/s. 117 of the Act.
Conclusion- Circulars, though binding on the Department, is not so on the Tribunal. We have no hesitation to hold that the SCN is time barred.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
