2016 (11) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rest at appropriate rates pursuant to Final Order No.879 of 2012, dated 09.08.2012, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai and Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus.No.670-671/2011, dated 23.09.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. 3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petition are that the petitioner imported 1040 bags of white oats under Warehouse Bill of Entry, dated 11.09.2008, warehoused at the Public Bonded Warehouse at M/s.Universal Logistics, Chennai. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an Ex-Bond Bill of Entry, dated 07.10.2008 for clearance of the said goods. After assessment of duty of Rs. 3,38,353/- and out of charge was given on 07.10.2008....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d the Customs have no role after out of charge is given by the Superintendent of Customs. Thus, on the technical ground, the refund claim was rejected, but the Customs Authority did not disbelieve the fact that the goods were totally destroyed, while at the warehouse. 4. The petitioner filed an Appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against the order rejecting the refund claim and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by an order dated 23.09.2011, allowed the Appeal. At this juncture, it would be relevant to quote paragraph No.7 of the order, wherein, the Commissioner of Appeals has rendered a finding as to how the petitioner is entitled for remission:- " I find in the instant case the goods had been destroyed in fire before cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Customs to remit the duty on such goods without any conditions or procedural aspects attached to it. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the order, the Commissioner of Appeals directed the petitioner to produce all documents required for remission of duty before the lower authority and the lower authority was directed to act in accordance with law. 5. The Department was not inclined to accept the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and filed an Appeal before the CESTAT. The CESTAT, vide order dated 08.08.2012, dismissed the Appeal. The petitioner, on obtaining the copy of the order passed by the CESTAT, submitted a representation on 18.09.2012, followed by another representation, dated 01.12.2012, requesting to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2012. The delay from 2012 to 2016 remains unexplained. None of the representation given by the petitioner evoked any response. The reply given under the RTI Act was also not an effective reply. Ultimately, the second respondent sought information from the petitioner as to whether they have produced all documents for the refund claim. Unfortunately, the second respondent has not referred to the earlier orders, more particularly, the Order-in-Original, dated 15.10.2009, wherein, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), has clearly set out as to the documents (16 numbers) furnished by the petitioner. That apart, the Commissioner of Appeals, while allowing the Appeal, by the order dated 23.09.2011, has clearly held that the Department did ....