9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /82M dated 7-7-1982 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeal) Bombay by which he rejected the appellants claim and confirm the order-in-original bearing No. S/8-7-858/81M dated 6-2-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, MCD by which rejected the appellants claim for refund holding that their claim does not fall either under Section 23(1) or under Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r refund of proportionate duty paid by them. As stated earlier the Assistant Collector as well as the Collector (Appeals) rejected their claim. 4. Shri V.N. Deshpande learned Advocate for the appellants urged that the authorities below have considered the claim only under Section 13 of the Act and that they have failed to consider the claim under Section 23(1) of the Act. Shri Deshpande no doubt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und under Section 13 of the Act. He also contended that Section 23 has no application since the evidence did not establish total destruction or loss. shri Krishan Kumar contended the loss to the party is not the 'loss' that is contemplated under Section 23. 6. Considered the submissions made on both sides. There is no dispute between the parties that the Customs examination held at the Docks esta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l.) that the expression "lost or destroyed" is used in the generic and comprehensive sense and includes the loss due to theft or pilferage. In other words it would include loss caused to the party. Having regard to the said decisions I see no ground to take a view different from the view taken in those decision. Following the decisions of this Bench in earlier cases, I allow this appeal and direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
