9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een warehoused. Goods which are warehoused undoubtedly have not been cleared for home consumption. In the Jindal Vijayanagar case, we have held that remission of duty is applicable to warehoused goods. The other case-laws relied on by the learned Advocates are also relevant. Revenue has not shown that the goods have been destroyed because of pilferage. The fact of the fire accident is not under dispute. Therefore, all the conditions for claiming remission u/s 23(1) have been fulfilled. The appellants are entitled for the entire duty paid on the goods. Moreover, the non-fulfilment of conditions of the Notifications mentioned by the Commissioner is also not relevant in the case of remission of duty. The discrepancy between the value shown in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished to the Customs Department was Rs. 90,09,012/-. Thus, there was huge variation between the insurance figures and what has been stated before the Customs. The total value of the raw materials and accessories destroyed in the fire works out to Rs. 1,89,66,096/-. The duty on the above goods comes to Rs. 90,48,067/-. The appellants, during the course of investigation, paid this amount to the Department on various dates. The issue came up before the Commissioner for the question of remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act. In the impugned order, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 90,48,067/- in respect of the raw materials/accessories, obtained duty free in terms of the provisions of Section 72(1)(d) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Section permits remission of duty if the following conditions are satisfied :- (a) Imported goods should have been lost or destroyed otherwise than by pilferage; (b) The loss should be before clearance for home consumption. (c) There is no other requirement as far as Section 23(1) is concerned. In fact, there is no mention of due-precaution being taken with respect to the warehoused goods. The section is applicable irrespective of the nature of exemption claimed. (iii) The following case-laws were relied on to show that Section 23 is applicable to warehoused goods :- (a) Mount Shivalik Breweries Ltd. v. Union of India - 2003 (157) E.L.T. 9 (Del.) (b) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of no consequence for claiming remission in view of CCE C, Surat-II v. Welspun Terri Towels - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 593 (Tri.-Mumbai). 5. The learned SDR reiterated the order of the lower authority. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The issue to be decided is whether the appellant is entitled to the remission of duty paid on the imported goods, which were lost in fire, under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 23(1) of the Customs Act deals with Remission of duty on lost and destroyed goods. Section 23(1) is reproduced below :- Section 23. Remission of duty on lost, destroyed or abandoned goods. - (1) [Without prejudice to the provisions of section 13, where it is shown] to the satisfaction of the [Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
