TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods. The total quantity of crude palm oil covered by the Bills of Entry was 6200.735 MTs, out of which a quantity of 6157.560 MTs only was received in the applicant s factory. The differential quantity (43.175 MTs) was claimed to have been lost in transit, by the party, who accordingly filed an application for remission of duty with the Assistant Commissioner concerned. Meanwhile, the department took the stand that the quantity of 43.175 MTs of crude palm oil was not put to the intended use and hence the benefit of concessional duty was not available to such quantity. On this basis, the department, by show cause notice, demanded duty amounting to Rs. 1,75,627/- and proposed to impose penalty on the party under Section 117 of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai [1999 (112) E.L.T. 336]. Ld. Consultant submits that the applicants have a strong prima facie case on merits warranting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty and penalty amounts. He also points out that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is already lying in deposit with the lower appellate authority. 4. Ld. SDR opposes this application and submits that Section 23 of the Customs Act, relied on by the applicants, is not applicable to this case at all. On the admitted facts of this case, the differential quantity of 43.175 MTs. of crude palm oil was imported at concessional rate of duty under the notifications for a specified purpose. That the intended purpose was not fulfilled in respect of this quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loss occurred after clearance of the goods for home consumption. Section 23 of the Customs Act, which is claimed to be the relevant provision of law governing such remission applications, is apparently not applicable to these facts inasmuch as the loss did not occur prior to clearance for home consumption. Ld. Consultant has not been able to cite any other provision of law which entitled the party to claim remission of duty of Customs on the raw material lost in transit from the Customs barrier to the factory. In the circumstances, apparently, pendency of the remission application is immaterial to this case. Since, the end-use condition under the notifications, admittedly, has not been fulfilled in respect of the differential quantity 43.17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
