9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund claim for duty on damaged imported goods stored in a bonded warehouse. Analysis: The appellant imported high frequency induction furnaces from the United Kingdom, which were found damaged upon clearance. The appellant filed for a refund of duty paid due to the damage. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, citing that the goods did not qualify as "warehoused goods" and that no abatement would be granted as per the condition set during the survey. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal (C/3603/87-A). The Tribunal deemed the condition set by the Assistant Collector regarding no abatement as illegal. It held that the goods qualified as "warehoused goods" and that the survey was conducted under proper supervision. The Tribunal also noted the value of the damaged goods as Rs. 3.5 lakhs in the survey report, contrary to the lower authorities' claims. Referring to precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the Department's responsibility to assess the damaged goods' value and grant abatement. The Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh order on abatement within four months. However, the Assistant Commissioner's subsequent order rejected the refund claim, deviating from the Tribunal's findings. This action was considered a violation of judicial discipline, as the Assistant Commissioner failed to follow the Tribunal's directions. In light of the Assistant Commissioner's disregard for the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal set aside the order and directed the adjudicating authority to accept the value determined by the surveyor for the damaged goods and grant the refund. The Tribunal emphasized the Department's duty to determine the damaged goods' value for abatement purposes, which was neglected in this case. The order was allowed, and a copy was forwarded to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for necessary action.
|
