https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82061 Paragraph 9(a) of Notification No. 77/80-Cus. denied duty relief only where goods were lost or destroyed because of the importer's wilful act, negligence or default. On the facts recorded, the fire was accidental, the documentary material supported the loss event, and there was no basis to conclude that the importer failed to take reasonable precautions. The finding of negligence by the adjudicating authority was treated as resting on an incorrect premise. The importer was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and the duty demand founded on denial of that benefit could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 07 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82061 Paragraph 9(a) of Notification No. 77/80-Cus. denied duty relief only where goods were lost or destroyed because of the importer's wilful act, negligence or default. On the facts recorded, the fire was accidental, the documentary material supported the loss event, and there was no basis to conclude that the importer failed to take reasonable precautions. The finding of negligence by the adjudicating authority was treated as resting on an incorrect premise. The importer was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and the duty demand founded on denial of that benefit could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82061