AGARWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER hearing both sides, these three appeals are being disposed off by this common order, since the issue involved therein is same.

(2.) THE appellants imported R.B.D. Palmolein Oil from Malaysia, via Madras Port. They warehoused the same at Madras. From the Bonded Warehouse at Madras, the oil was transported under a transit bond, to a Bonded Warehouse at Hyderabad. At Hyderabad, they were asked to pay duty on quantities of the oil as shown in the Survey Reports of the landing at Madras Port. They paid the same and cleared the Oil on Ex bond B.E. They subsequently filed refund applications, which were rejected.

(3.) IN Appeal No. E/343/99 taken as a sample, the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order found as follows - 6. I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the appellants. I am inclined to agree with the findings of the Assistant Commissioner. In the subject case R.B.D. Palmolein oil was transported from Madras to Hyderabad by the appellants themselves under a transit bond and the quantity permitted for transit as per the documents is 492.574 MTs and therefore, it is the responsibility of the appellants to ensure that quantity in full is brought for re -warehousing and for any loss or shortage the appellants are responsible. The appellants have paid the entire duty involved against the Into -Bond Bill of Entry No. 362/96, dated 21 -9 -96 before the clearance of the RBD Palmolein Oil. The duty of Rs. 38,307/ - involved on the short received quantity of 8.594 MT was, however, deposited vide the separate Challan No. 3629, dated 28 -9 -96. No refund is admissible to the appellants on the short received RBD Palmolein Oil of 8.594 MTs as sufficient and authentic proof has not been brought on record by the appellants to show the loss or destruction or abandonment so as to be eligible for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order is sustainable. Hence these appeals.