TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner for rejection of the remission is that assessee had not taken sufficient measures to protect the portion of the value of the goods which represent duty element while the goods were in his possession. Undisputedly the value of the goods was insured by the appellant and there is no requirement or legal provision for insuring the duty element. If the duty element is also required to be insured and reimbursed by the insurance company, then there is no need for the assessee to ask for remission of duty in which case the provision of remission of duty would become redundant. Regarding rejection of remission for loss of imported inputs - import of the inputs in terms of notification no. 52/2003-CUS, cannot be made the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the insurance company, who conducted the survey and confirmed the quantity loss due to fire accident. The appellants were also issued a certificate dated 21.12.2005 certifying the fact of occurrence of fire in the appellants factory by the fire brigade officer. 4. Thereafter, the appellant applied for remission of duty of ₹ 28,25,241/- involved in the destruction of indigenous / imported raw material as also involved in the final goods. It is seen that out of the said duty an amount of ₹ 26,16,483/- related to duty remission in terms of the final goods and the balance amount of ₹ 75,185/- and ₹ 1,33,585/- in respect of indigenous and imported raw material. The said remission application stands rejected by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no need for the assessee to ask for remission of duty in which case the provision of remission of duty would become redundant. As regards remission in respect of inputs, the adjudicating authority observed that since inputs were procured without payment of duty, in terms of the notification and there is no provision for remission of duty in the said notification the duty cannot be foregone. I find that an identical issue was the subject matter of the Tribunal s decision in the case of Next Fashion Creators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs Bangalore-2006 (206) ELT 1015 (Tri-Bang.) wherein it was held that import of the inputs in terms of notification no. 52/2003-CUS, cannot be made the ground for denying the remission of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
