TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether goods lost or destroyed in a factory fire were covered by paragraph 9(a) of Notification No. 77/80-Cus. when the loss was alleged to be due to reasons beyond the importer's control and not due to any wilful act, negligence or default.
Analysis: Paragraph 9(a) of the notification denied duty only where goods were lost or destroyed due to the importer's wilful act, negligence or default. The documentary record, including the panchnama, official correspondence, insurance settlement papers and the fire superintendent's certificate, established that the fire was accidental, that fire-fighting assistance reached the site promptly, and that the appellants were not shown to have failed to take reasonable precautions. The finding of negligence recorded by the adjudicating authority was based on an incorrect premise.
Conclusion: The appellants were not guilty of negligence or default and were entitled to the benefit of paragraph 9(a) of Notification No. 77/80-Cus.
Final Conclusion: The duty demand based on denial of the notification benefit could not stand, and the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are lost or destroyed in a fire and the evidence shows absence of wilful act, negligence or default by the importer, the exemption under the relevant notification cannot be denied.
TaxTMI 
