9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e remission claim having attained finality, pursuant to order of the CESTAT, dated 08.08.2012. The delay from 2012 to 2016 remains unexplained. There cannot be any dispute for the petitioner being entitled for remission of customs duty paid. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue a positive direction to the respondents to grant remission of the duty and effect refund to the petitioner. The interest of the Department / Revenue has been sufficiently safeguarded as the petitioner has already executed a perpetual indemnity bond which shall be kept alive. Remission of duty allowed - refund of duty paid already allowed - for interest on refund, matter remanded back. - Decided in favor of appellant. - W. P. No. 25808 of 2016 - - - Dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and grant consequential refund of duty already paid. Along with the Application, the petitioner submitted the following documents:- 1. Triplicate copy of Bill of Entry 2. Custom Duty Challan 3. Commercial Invoice 4. Packing List 5. Certificate of Austrian origin 6. Purchase order 7. Custom attested ? 8. Release gate pass 9. D.D.Challan (Photo copy) 10. Statement of Universal Logistics 11. Auditor Certification 12. Authorization letter 13. Warehouse handling charges bill (photo copy) 14. Warehouse storage charged bill (photo copy) 15. F.I.R. (photo copy) 16. Fire Brigade (photo copy) Since the refund claim was not processed, the petitioner filed Writ Petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) [Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 13, where it is shown] to the satisfaction of the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] that any imported goods have been lost [(otherwise than as a result of pilferage)] or destroyed, at any time before clearance for home consumption, the [Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs] shall remit the duty on such goods . In the instant case nowhere the Department contended that the goods were not destroyed or such destruction was not to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Further, it states that Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs shall remit the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n was taken. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Authorities under the Right to Information Act, for which, the petitioner received a reply on 05.09.2015 stating that the original file was mixed up with other files during the shifting of the Refunds Section and the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals is being pursued and necessary order will be passed and communicated to the petitioner in 20 days. Not satisfied with this, the petitioner preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, who, by an order dated 28.09.2015, held that already Information Officer has given information. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 21.01.2016 and also executed a perpetual indemnity bon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department. Therefore, once again to insist upon furnishing of documents by the petitioner amounts to harassment. It appears that the Communication, dated 14.06.2016 has been sent by the third respondent to the petitioner because of the fact that they do not have any papers or files in their Office. In fact, this has been candidly admitted by them, while giving a reply under the Right to Information Act, dated 05.09.2015. 7. Thus, taking note of the all above mentioned facts, which have culled out from the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT in favour of the petitioner, which clearly shows that there cannot be any dispute for the petitioner being entitled for remission of customs duty paid. Therefore, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
