9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. The appeal is listed for admission as the amount involved in this appeal was less than the threshhold limit as prescribed under second proviso to Section 35-B (1). Since issue is of recurring nature, I admit the appeal. 2. The learned advocate points out that the issue involved in this case is of loss of the molasses due to storage losses in the factory and los ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that their case falls under this Board's Circular. In the end he submits that the case may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, submits that it was the duty of the appellant/applicant to follow the proper procedure and should have approached the Commissioner for remission of the duty on the storage losses of molasses. He submits that the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of molasses in this case 11.410 MT which works out to 0.014706% of the production, which is within permissible limit. I also find that the appellant vide their letter dated 31-12-2001 had applied for condonation losses of the same quantity of the molasses. The letter is addressed to the Deputy Commissioner through the Range Suptd. I also find that the Range authorities have received the letter, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addressed to the Revenue authorities by the assessee, should be dealt by that authority, if need arises to be sent to his higher authority, if the jurisdiction lies with such higher authority. 6. In view of the above discussion and as the storage losses are within the permissible limit, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Therefore, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
