2004 (9) TMI 247 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for remission of duty by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
2. Disagreement on reporting of loss within 24 hours.
3. Interpretation of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules.
4. Consistency in condoning storage losses up to 2% by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appellants, manufacturing sugar, applied for remission of duty of Rs. 3,45,487.50, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The appellants argued that the molasses generated during the manufacturing process were under the control of the State Excise Department and stored in steel tanks. The storage loss was within the prescribed limit of 2% as per Circular No. 261/15/CC/1/82/CX-8. The Commissioner disallowed the remission of duty due to the loss not being reported within 24 hours, as per Para 263 of the Basic Excise Manual. However, the appellants applied for condonation of loss under Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, which does not have a time limit. The Tribunal has consistently allowed storage losses up to 2% in previous cases, regardless of the reporting time.

2. The Revenue argued that the main reason for rejecting the remission of duty was the failure to report the loss within 24 hours. The appellants showed negative quantities in their statement, indicating storage loss. The appellants clarified that the negative figures represented the total storage quantity due to loss. Despite this discrepancy, the Tribunal historically condoned losses up to 2% and granted remission of duty.

3. The judgment focused on the interpretation of Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, which allows for the condonation of losses due to natural causes without a specified time limit. The Board's directive to condone storage losses up to 2% was a crucial factor in the decision. Since the losses in this case did not exceed the prescribed limit and previous Tribunal decisions consistently supported condoning losses up to 2%, the appeal of the appellants was allowed, and the Commissioner's order was set aside.

4. The Tribunal's consistent stance on condoning storage losses up to 2% played a significant role in this judgment. The reliance on past decisions, such as Sarjoo Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and others, where similar situations were dealt with favorably, reinforced the appellants' argument. The Tribunal's adherence to this principle in the absence of a specific time limit for reporting losses under Rule 49 supported the decision to grant remission of duty in this case.