9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (11) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Demand and confirmation of duty on leaked molasses stored in approved steel tank, Allegation of failure to provide safe storage place, Duty payment contested by appellant, Application of duty value for sub-standard molasses, Interpretation of Rule 49(1) of Central Excise Rules. Analysis: The case involves the demand and confirmation of duty on 7,000 qtls. of molasses that leaked from an approved steel tank into an adjoining kachcha pit, affecting the quantity and quality of the molasses. The Department alleged that the appellant failed to provide a safe storage place and demanded duty at a higher rate based on the assessable value set by the State Government. The appellant contested this, arguing that the value applicable to the sub-standard quantity should be applied. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, which requires duty payment unless goods are lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accidents during storage in approved premises. The Tribunal noted that the leakage of molasses from the steel tank was accidental and that the tank had been approved by the Department for storage. Merely alleging a failure to provide safe storage without specifying the nature of the failure does not justify denying the claim for non-payment of duty on the leaked quantity. Importantly, duty can only be demanded when goods are removed from the factory or consumed for manufacturing other commodities. Since the molasses had leaked into the kachcha pit but remained within the factory premises and were not consumed or removed, the demand for duty was deemed unsustainable. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasizes the importance of proper interpretation of rules governing duty payment and highlights the necessity for clear evidence to support allegations of non-compliance with storage regulations.
|
