SECRETARY COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PORT
LAWS(CAL)-2005-12-65
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 22,2005

SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against order dated June 1, 2004 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata in an appeal preferred by the present appellant against the order dated June 19, 2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata.
(2.) The following facts are not in dispute: (a) On 15th November, 2001, the appellant imported 12 cases of Model G- 1518, AT-Planetarium Instrument System with 13 Panorama Screens and other accessories for the purpose of establishing a Planetarium in Lucknow. The petitioner filed the Bill of Entry for warehousing those goods on 14th December, 2001. The customs authorities granted permission for warehousing those goods on 21st December, 2001 and thereafter on 27th December, 2001 those were warehoused with the Central Warehousing Corporation, an undertaking of Union of India under section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) Union of India issued an exemption notification being 21/02 on March 1, 2002 and in terms thereof, the petitioner became entitled to full exemption from the duty of those goods then lying in warehouse. (c) On 21st March, 2002 the customs authorities called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 600.00 on account of overtime charges to the proper officer for the clearance of those goods to enable the petitioner to remove those items. (d) On 8th August, 2002 the petitioner submitted an application for refund of duty under section 27 of the Act on the ground that the petitioner was not liable to pay any duty in view of the notification of exemption. (e) The authorities below rejected the application for refund on the ground that on the date of clearance of the goods for warehousing the petitioner being liable to pay duties, the petitioner cannot get benefit of notification of exemption which became effective from a period when the petitioner had already cleared the goods for warehousing and goods were in the warehouse.
(3.) Being dissatisfied the petitioner has preferred the present appeal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.