1996 (5) TMI 205 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty on damaged molasses stored in unapproved tanks.
2. Allegations of negligence and storage in unapproved tanks.
3. Applicability of Trade Notice and remission of duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged an order seeking duty on 46,829.50 qtls of molasses damaged due to auto-combustion in tanks, with the Collector alleging negligence and storage in unapproved tanks. The appellant claimed remission based on Rule 49, citing approval for storage in kuccha pits and lack of negligence. The original authority upheld the duty demand, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the molasses stored in the pucca tank and kuccha pits were approved, with subsequent withdrawal of kuccha pit storage permission post-notice. They denied negligence, citing prompt actions post-combustion. The adjudicating authority's observation on sold molasses was refuted, claiming only burnt residue was sold. Legal precedents were cited to support remission claim.

3. The Trade Notice withdrawing permission for kuccha pit storage was central to the dispute. The appellant contended that the Trade Notice did not revoke existing permissions, supported by the site plan approvals. The Tribunal noted the lack of negligence and natural causes for the molasses loss, citing expert opinions and legal precedents. Emphasis was placed on the Trade Notice's language and the percentage of molasses stored in approved tanks. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing fair treatment for duty remission requests.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order, granting consequential relief and highlighting the need for fair consideration of duty remission requests when excisable goods are damaged.