2015 (10) TMI 1697 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - claim of remission of duty was rejected by the ld. Commissioner on the grounds that the storage tank was not filled to its full capacity, the storage tank was duly tested before put to use and the reports of other authorities was not provided to the ld. Commissioner to felt him satisfied under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to sanction the claim of remission of duty - Held that - From the facts of the case, it is not coming out how the appellant was negligent in storing the molasses. It is not a case where appellant has stored more quantity than the capacity of the storage tank. So the appellant could be negligent. Moreover, before putting the storage tank into use, the storage tank was duly tested. Therefore, the appellant has taken all precautions before storing the molasses in the said storage tank. No prudent men will invite accident to incur losses. Revenue had not come with any tangible findings that appellant was negligent by not following the precautions. In fact, in show cause notice, it is recorded that the storage capacity was more than the quantity stored. Moreover, storage tank was duly tested before put to use. Then what more precautions were required by the appellant to avoid the accident. In the absence of any of these requirements it cannot be said that appellant was negligent while storing the molasses in the storage tank. - Impugned order set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of remission of duty.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of sugar and molasses, filed a claim of remission of duty after 46,865.30 quintals of molasses stored in a tank were burned due to pressure. The claim was rejected as the tank was not filled to capacity, not all reports were provided, and the Commissioner was not satisfied under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant contended that the tank was not filled to capacity, duly tested before use, and the accident was not due to their fault. The appellant cited various cases supporting their claim. The AR opposed, stating the tank was not filled to capacity, other reasons could have caused the accident, and reports from other authorities were not provided. The AR argued that the cited cases were not relevant. The Tribunal noted that the tank was not filled to capacity, duly tested, and the accident was not due to negligence. The Tribunal found no evidence of negligence and held the appellant entitled to the claim without relying on the cited cases.

In conclusion, the impugned order denying the remission of duty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief.