High Court Upholds Remission on Duty for Goods Destroyed in Flood

The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing remission on duty for goods destroyed due to flooding. The Court emphasized the department's inaction and held that the department cannot benefit from its own failure to act promptly. It dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the department's procedure was unjust and finding no substantial legal question.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against CESTAT order allowing remission on duty for goods destroyed in absence of department officer.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the CESTAT order allowing remission on duty for goods destroyed due to flooding. The appellant's factories were flooded, leading to the destruction of finished goods worth approximately Rs. 27.70 lakhs. Despite informing the department and sending reminders, there was no response. The appellant destroyed the goods after giving intimation to the department. The department later rejected the remission application, citing destruction in the absence of their officer. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, relying on precedents, emphasizing the department's inaction and the risk of contamination. The High Court noted the department's failure to act within the prescribed time frame, leading to the destruction of goods. It held that the department cannot benefit from its own inaction and agreed with the Madhya Pradesh High Court's view that the department's procedure was unjust. The High Court found no substantial legal question and dismissed the appeal, upholding the remission on duty for the destroyed goods.

---