9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddenly beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, the allegation that the appellant have not taken the proper precaution to avoid fire incident is absolutely baseless and imaginary. Moreover, it is the appellant who has to be most careful about their goods as it is not only the duty but the huge stake of value of the goods is involved. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that the appellant was careless and negligent due to which fire incidence has taken place. It is found that once after carrying out thorough inspection and survey, the insurance company has satisfactorily granted the insurance claim that itself is evidence to establish that the fire incidence was beyond the control of the appellant. Therefore, the ground that the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt ORDER RAMESH NAIR This appeal is directed against impugned order-in-original dated 03.09.2021 whereby the Adjudicating Authority namely Commissioner has rejected the application for remission of duty in respect of imported raw-material destroyed in fire, in the appellant s SEZ unit. The Commissioner while rejecting the application given the following reasons : I. The Customs provision of Section 23 in respect of remission of Customs duty is not applicable to the SEZ unit, as the SEZ unit is governed by SEZ Act, which overrides all other Acts. II. The appellant have not taken proper precaution to avoid the fire incident. III. The appellant, while taking the insurance policy have not covered the Customs duty but on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without the including of customs duty the insurance is done only on the basis of invoice value and the element of customs duty does not exist. Therefore, the insurance company will not insure any amount which is not the part of the value of the goods. Therefore, the appellant have rightly insured the only value of the goods. For this reason the remission cannot be denied. In support, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- M/s Satguru polyfab Pvt. Ltd V/s CC, Kandla reported as 2011 (267) ELT 273 (Tri.- Ahmd) M/s Jindal International v/s CC, kandla reported as 2013 (290) ELT 729 (Tri.- Ahmedabad) Sami Labs Ltd V/s. The Commissioner of Customs ( February 28th 2007) State of Haryana V/s. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that the appellant was negligent in the matter of fire incident cannot be accepted. 4.2 As regard, the contention of the Learned Commissioner that the Section 23 shall not apply for remission of duty in the SEZ unit. We find that since the entire assessment of customs duty is done under the Customs Act. The provision for remission of custom duty shall automatically apply. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel that only those provisions of other Act shall not apply, which are inconsistence with the provision of the SEZ Act. In the present case the grant of remission in respect of customs duty in terms of Section 23 does not contradict any of the provision of the SEZ Act. Therefore, the contention of the Adjudicating Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
