2008 (7) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

Remission applications rejected on the ground that the Appellant failed to intimate regarding loss and destruction of goods within 24 hours - Tribunal in the case of Ramala Sehkari Chinni Mills Ltd held that intimation that losses occurring due to storage as well as leakage while transferring molasses to tankers handling losses are not required within 24 hours moreover, losses are much below to 2% as allowed by the Board Circular remission is allowable

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against rejection of applications for remission of duty based on failure to provide timely information and pinpoint the actual cause of losses in molasses.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed remission applications for duty on molasses but faced rejection due to failure to report loss information promptly and specify the exact cause of losses. The Commissioner observed non-compliance with Trade Notice requirements regarding timely information submission. The Appellant's remission applications detailed the quantity of molasses produced, dispatched, and lost in two different sugar seasons. The Appellant argued that losses due to evaporation, handling, and spillage are natural and unavoidable during storage and transfer processes. They emphasized that such losses are inherent and cannot be prevented until tanks are emptied.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and found the Appellant had provided justifications for the handling and storage losses during the seasons in question. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal clarified that immediate intimation to Range Superintendent is necessary only for losses due to natural causes or accidents like flood or fire. The Tribunal further explained that losses from storage and handling, such as spillage during transfer, do not require immediate reporting. Noting that the losses were within the permissible limit set by the Board Circular, the Tribunal deemed the Commissioner's findings unsustainable.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable. The order rejecting the remission applications was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court on 15-7-2008.