9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he approval of the Department. According to the Department, the said Kutchha Pit No. 1 was not approved by the Central Excise Department for storage of molasses since such Kutchha Pits were not safe. The said quantity of molasses stored in Kutchha Pit No. 1, according to the appellants, got destroyed by spontaneous combustion on 29-6-1996. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Rules 47, 48 and 173G of the Central Excise Rules as also the provisions of Trade Notice No. 259/88, dated 2-1-1989 of the Kanpur Commissionerate as the appellants had stored the said quantity of molasses without payment of Central Excise duty. The matter was adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the Commissioner dated 10-1-1997 enclosing details of remission demand in the prescribed proforma. 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that since the molasses had got burnt and became unfit for human consumption due to reasons beyond the control of the appellants, the appellants were, under the proviso to Rule 49 entitled to the remission of duty claimed by them. If at all any liability was attracted, it was only to the extent of not informing the jurisdictional Officers about removal of the molasses to the kutchha pits without prior permission. Ld. Counsel therefore pleads for setting aside the duty demand. He submits that if at all, the only liability the appellants could be fastened with was a nominal penalty to the ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants were required to follow these provisions and the goods had not been found to have been stored as per the said provisions, the question of remission of duty under proviso to Rule 49 did not arise. He submitted that the impugned order did not call for any interference and the Appeal may be rejected. 7. I have considered the submissions and'have perused the records. I find that the appellants had by letter dated 9-7-1996 addressed to the Commissioner sought remission of the duty of Rs. 30,096.90 on 11,147 qtls. of molasses on the ground that the loss of molasses had occurred due to spontaneous combustion by natural causes beyond the control of the appellants despite the efforts made by them to control the same. According to the ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 35B. The said proviso in Clause (a) states that no appeal will lie in case of loss of goods where the loss occurs in transit from a factory to a warehouse or to another factory or from one warehouse to another, or during the course of processing of the goods in warehouse or any storage, whether in a factory or in a warehouse. The contention of the Department is that since the molasses had been stored in the kutchha pits without obtaining prior permission of the authorities concerned, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is covered by clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 35B(1). Ld. Counsel on the other hand had submitted that the storage had taken place in kutchha pits within the factory premises and the ground plan and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
