https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339948 Imported capital goods destroyed in a fire while lying in bonded premises were held eligible for remission under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 because the goods were lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, and prior payment of duty was not a condition precedent. The same scheme was read with Section 13, which addresses pilfered goods, and the notification conditions could not be enforced where performance had become impossible due to an unavoidable accident. The contrary precedent was treated as fact-specific and inapplicable. Remission for the imported goods was allowed and the corresponding duty demand was set aside; the claim relating to indigenous goods was not pressed, so the duty confirmed on those goods remained. en-us Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 11:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339948 Imported capital goods destroyed in a fire while lying in bonded premises were held eligible for remission under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 because the goods were lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, and prior payment of duty was not a condition precedent. The same scheme was read with Section 13, which addresses pilfered goods, and the notification conditions could not be enforced where performance had become impossible due to an unavoidable accident. The contrary precedent was treated as fact-specific and inapplicable. Remission for the imported goods was allowed and the corresponding duty demand was set aside; the claim relating to indigenous goods was not pressed, so the duty confirmed on those goods remained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 19 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339948