TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , that too, after a lapse of 3 years. - The Asstt. Commissioner, after having granted remission, cannot review his own order and direct for recovery of the amount remitted and such an order is bad in law. In case of CCE & Cus. v. Welspun Terri Towels [2001 (11) TMI 200 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] it was held that, the insurance covers risk and is governed by separate enactments. We cannot mix up the provisions of the Customs Act with Insurance Act to deny the benefit specifically provided under Customs Act, 1962 - goods were destroyed by rain and floods and became unfit for human consumption and had to be destroyed as per law. Accordingly, the appellant was entitled for remission of duty as the goods were bonded. - Decided in favour of assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase was re-adjudicated vide order No. 211/Remission/2007-08, dated 31-3-2008 and the Asstt. Commissioner, after satisfying that the goods on which remission was claimed were damaged and were required to be destroyed as per law, allowed remission of duty of Rs. 41,83,281/- under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act. The said order of remission became final as there was no appeal filed against the same by the Revenue. 2.1 In the meanwhile, the appellant had lodged their claim with the Insurance company and the claim was settled for a sum of Rs. 1,93,77,041/- and the appellant received a sum of Rs. One crore as on account payment. For the balance amount, after adjusting for a reinstatement value of Rs. 54,261/-, the Insurance company issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the account of the Commissioner of Central Excise and remit the balance amount to the appellant. Pursuant to the said order, the Insurance company deducted the said amount from the sanctioned claim and remitted the balance amount to the appellant. 2.4 Against the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The department also filed an appeal against the said order dated 31-3-2011 on the ground that the amount of duty demand was over and above the monetary limit prescribed for Asstt./Deputy Commissioner. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by the department by setting aside the order of the Asstt. Commissioner dated 31-3-2011 and also rejected the appeal filed by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under which he had asked the Insurance Company to remit the duty portion, especially when the claim of remission of duty had already been settled by the department. A report has been filed by the Department stating, inter alia, as follows :- It is a fact that remission was granted vide Order-in-Original No. 211/Remission/07-08, dated 31-3-2008. However, later as the assessee asked for NOC from the Department for settlement of their insurance claim in respect of the same goods which remission of duty has been claimed, as the insurance policy was jointly in the name of the Commissioner and the assessee. Therefore, it was felt that, the assessee was going to be doubly benefited (unjustly enrich) by having the benefit of remission of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods were bonded. From the records of the case, it is seen that the value of the goods destroyed in the floods were as follows :- Value of duty paid goods 94,89,393 Value of duty free goods 1,15,13,260 Repair charges 1,57,600 Total (Rs.) 2,11,60,253 Thus as against a loss of goods valued at Rs. 2,11,60,253/-, the insurance claim was settled at Rs. 1,93,22,780/-. As the amount settled in favour of the appellant does not include any customs duty in respect of bonded goods, the question of getting any double benefit does not arise at all. Therefore, the question of recovering the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
