2006 (6) TMI 380

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7-4-2004 in the stores of the appellant unit, the entire raw materials had been burnt along with certain documents. The duty foregone on the goods destroyed by fire was Rs. 48,21,830/-. The Superintendent of Customs directed the appellant to pay the said duty amount. The appellants filed an application on 6-9-2004 with the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, claiming remission of duty amounting to Rs. 48,21,830/- under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the goods destroyed in the fire accident. Investigations revealed that the value of the goods destroyed in the fire accident as claimed in the Insurance claim was Rs. 4,20,78,539/-. However, the value of the goods furnished to the Customs Department was Rs. 90,09,012/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Advocate and Smt. Rukmani Menon, the learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Ganesh Havanur, the learned SDR for the Revenue. 4. The learned Advocates urged the following points :- (i)      The Commissioner has stated that the appellant had not taken due precaution for safe keeping of the bonded goods as contemplated under Section 64 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant has not been negligent. This is established by the Insurance Company paying the amount claimed. There is no finding of any negligence by any authority. (ii)    The Commissioner has stated that Section 23 will not apply to warehoused goods.           The abov....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication in the context of the claim for remission. Similarly, Section 72 has also no bearing. Section 72 cannot be invoked for remission as held by this Tribunal in Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (cited supra). (iv)   The Commissioner has denied the remission on the basis of Pasupathi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. case (cited supra). In the Pasupathi Overseas case, the Apex Court rejected the remission claim as the claim was based on very vague grounds. The claimant stated that the goods had been either pilfered, lost due to spillage or any other kind of loss. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the rejection of the claim by the Department. This case is not remotely connected with the present case. In the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch goods." A perusal of Section 23(1) reveals that in order to claim remission of duty, the important condition is that it should be shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner that the imported goods have been lost or destroyed at any time, before clearance for home consumption. If the loss is because of pilferage, remission would not be applicable. In the instant case, the goods have been warehoused. Goods which are warehoused undoubtedly have not been cleared for home consumption. In the Jindal Vijayanagar case, we have held that remission of duty is applicable to warehoused goods. The other case-laws relied on by the learned Advocates are also relevant. Revenue has not shown that the goods have ....