2010 (2) TMI 405 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty on molasses- The main ground for rejection of the request for remission of duty is that the molasses was not available and in case there is a request for remission of duty on the ground that the goods become unfit for consumption or marketing, the report of Chemical Test is required. In the present case, as the molasses were not available, therefore no Chemical Test had been conducted and hence, the request for remission of duty was rejected. Held that- rejection of remission was not correct especially as there was no evidence of their removal from factory of production.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against rejection of remission of duty for molasses deemed unfit for consumption and marketing for the years 1985-86 to 1987-88.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grounds for Rejection of Remission of Duty:
The main ground for the rejection of the request for remission of duty was the unavailability of molasses and the absence of a Chemical Test report. The Commissioner rejected the request on these grounds as no test could be conducted due to the unavailability of molasses.

2. Appellant's Contention:
The Appellant filed an Application for Remission of Duty in 1988 for molasses that had become unfit for consumption or marketing. The Appellant argued that no sample was taken, and after a significant lapse of 13 years, the request was rejected in 2003. The Appellant emphasized that there was no evidence that the molasses were removed from the factory, citing previous Tribunal decisions to support their case.

3. Revenue's Stand:
The Revenue relied on various Tribunal decisions to support their rejection of the remission of duty request. They argued that in similar cases, where molasses were sold after the remission application, the rejection was upheld. They also pointed out cases where the loss of molasses was not verified by the authorities, leading to rejection.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant's request for remission of duty was made in 1988, but no action was taken until 2003 when it was rejected. The Tribunal found that no sample was taken from the molasses in question as per Board's Instruction. The Tribunal distinguished the cited cases by the Revenue, stating that the circumstances were different in the present case as the molasses were not verified for their condition, and there was no evidence of their removal from the factory.

5. Final Verdict:
Based on the arguments presented and the lack of verification regarding the molasses' condition, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order and allowed the Appeal, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely verification and evidence in cases of remission of duty requests for goods deemed unfit for consumption or marketing.

This comprehensive analysis covers the grounds of rejection, arguments from both sides, Tribunal's decision, and the final verdict in the case regarding the remission of duty for molasses.