ORDER
K.K. Usha, J. (Preisedent)
1. This is an appeal at the instance of Revenue challenging order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 25.5.98. The issue to be considered in this case is one regarding the date with reference to 7 which rate of duty is to be decided.
2. The respondent imported 200 bags of Glucona Delta Lactone F 5010 under Bill of Entry No. 10408 dated 31.10.95 and warehoused the same under Bond dated 6.12.95. The period of the bond expired on 5.12.96. The respondent failed to ex-bond the goods during the validity period and requested for clearance of the goods on 8.10.97. He sought to pay the interest and duty as applicable on the date of clearance. Department took the view that rate of duty shall be applicable as on the date of expiry of bond period. The adjudicating authority took the view that the importer had unauthorisedly kept the goods in the warehouse and that the expiry of bond is to be taken as the date of deemed removal of the goods. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Ravon v. Collector of Customs. Calcutta 1996(86) ELT 464(SC). The party filed an appeal and contended that in an identical matter of M/s. Pacific Exports, the order passed by the adjudicating authority on the same principle was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) and that the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in M/s. Pacific Exports is binding on the adjudicating authority. The above contention was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the appeal filed by the party was allowed. Aggrieved by the above, is the present appeal by the Revenue.
3. We find merit in the contention raised by the Revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) should have applied the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Kesoram Ravon. In the above decision, the Apex Court has taken the view that when the goods are removed from the warehouse beyond the expiry of bond period the date of expiry of bond is to be taken as the date of deemed removal and that will be the date for determining the rate of duty. A later decision of this Tribunal in K.L.J. Plastics Ltd. v. CC Chennai 2000(117) ELT 108(T) following M/s. Kesoram Ravon was also affirmed by the Supreme Court 2002(143) ELT A 266.
4. In the light of the above, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal.
Operative part of the order already pronounced in the open Court on 30.10.2003.