9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and entry in the appellants records, got destroyed in a fire accident on 12.6.2012. This destruction of the impugned goods by fire was an act God on which the noticee had no control. Having thus observed, the Adjudicating authority held that it would not be fair to penalize the noticee. This clearly shows that the bonafides of the appellants are not in doubt. Thus we find that not only the jurisprudence cited on the issue but also the Judgment of CESTAT in case of Vamsadhara Paper Mills Ltd. [2009 (6) TMI 801 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] fully support the appellants case. Therefore we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and allow the appeal. - stay grated. - appeal No. C/53573/2014 - FINAL ORDER NO. 50188/2015 - Dated:- 5-1-2015 - Mr.G. Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctory, it was impossible for them to use them for the intended purpose. II. That the destruction happened in fire is not in doubt as is evident even from the impugned order which has not imposed any penalty on them. III. The extended period is not invokable in their case as there has been no willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. IV. As the goods are not available for confiscation, the redemption fine can not be imposed. V. The appellants cited the following judgments in there favour: (i) Vamsahara Paper Mills Vs. CC, Visakhapatnam, 2009 (247) ELT 751 (Tri.-Bang.), (ii) Sami Labs Ltd. Vs. CC. Bangalore, 2007 (216) ELT 59 (Tri-Bang.), (iii) CC, Bangalore Vs. Sami Lab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharge of export obligation, the appellants failure to discharge export obligation on the ground that goods were destroyed and therefore could not have been so utilized is not a valid ground for non recovery of the differentially duty. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that the exemption under Sl. No. 152 of notification No. 21/2002-CUS was available subject to the following conditions (a) the importer furnishes an undertaking to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that such imported goods will be used for the purpose specified and in the event of his failure to comply with this condition, he shall be liable to pay, in respect of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f recovery of duty when the goods have been cleared under a bond and that the Customs authorities have jurisdiction for demand in duty for violation of post importation condition. He also cited several judgments to the effect that the conditions of the exemption notifications and the language thereof have to be strictly construed to advance the proposition that once the exemption condition is not fulfilled the duty becomes recoverable. That the exemption notifications are to be strictly construed is an accepted position in law. We also do not have to quarrel with the proposition that when the goods are cleared provisionally under a bond, the duty can be demanded in terms of that bond and therefore the time limitation of section 28 of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame time it also had no power to enforce contract already frustrated or which does not exist in the eye of law. The Bombay High Court went on to add that the law of frustration of contract is well settled. Section 56 of Indian Contract Act deals with the contract. It lays down that the contract becomes void upon the act being (I) unlawful or (II) impossible and that the contract is discharged where its performance becomes impossible. CESTAT Bengalore in the case of Lanco Kondapalli Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC Vishakhapatnam [2002 (149) ELT 941] held that when goods were not used elsewhere in India, and were destroyed in such conditions there is no additional liability for differential duty. 7. In the present case we find that the Adjudicatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
