9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivate bonded warehouse under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 for warehousing of imported bulk drugs. The private bonded warehouse was duly insured with endorsement in favour of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. On 26th July, 2005, due to heavy rains and consequent floods, the goods stored in the warehouse which consisted of duty paid goods and as well as goods bonded without payment of duty were damaged. The appellant sought remission of customs duty on imported goods bonded under Section 23 of the Customs Act. Their application for remission was rejected by the jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner vide order No. 92/Remission/2007-08, dated 9th August, 2007. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order and the Appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s lying in the warehouse on 26-7-2005, total quantity of goods damaged and total quantity of goods salvaged which were ex-bonded subsequently and the appellant provided the relevant information along with the details of settlement made by the insurance company. On receipt of the same, the department took up the matter with the Insurance company who vide letter dated 13-12-2010 informed the department that they had paid a sum of Rs. One crore to the appellant directly and the cheque for the balance amount of Rs. 93,22,780/- was issued in favour of the Commissioner of Central Excise and the appellant, M/s. DSM Anti-Infectives Ltd. which protects the department's interests, if any. 2.3 After hearing the appellant on 1-3-2011, the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n order dated 31-3-2008 after a lapse of 3 years. The said order is bad in law apart from being time-barred. The remission of duty under the Customs Act is a benefit given to the importer and such benefits have no bearing on the benefit claimed under the Insurance Act, 1938. He relies on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Welspun Terry Towels [2002 (149) E.L.T. 593 (T)] and Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. [2006 (201) E.L.T. 18] in support of his contention. Accordingly he prays for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the refund of Rs. 41,83,281/- collected from the Insurance Company towards customs duty. 4. The ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue re-iterates the findings of the lower adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf for consideration. 6.1 It is an undisputed fact that an order of remission of customs duty for an amount of Rs. 41,83,281/- was passed vide Order-in-Original No. 211/Remission/2007-08, dated 31-3-2008 pursuant to an Order-in-Appeal dated 28-11-2007. Both these orders have not been challenged by the department at any point of time and therefore, they have become final. Therefore, the issue of remission of duty granted to the appellant vide order dated 31-3-2008 cannot be re-opened by the Department, that too, after a lapse of 3 years. The Asstt. Commissioner, after having granted remission, cannot review his own order and direct for recovery of the amount remitted and such an order is bad in law and we hold accordingly. 6.2 In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
