9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant intimated to the department that there is likelihood of auto-combustion in tank No.3 on 14.5.2008 and the shifted 7000Qtls. of molasses to other tanks. Remaining 11048.40 qtls. of molasses could not be shifted to other tanks / katcha pits. On 15.5.2008 auto-combustion took place and 11048 qtls. of molasses became unusable. The appellant intimated to the concerned authorities regarding the auto combustion which took place in tank No. 3 and filed claim of remission of duty on these burnt molasses. Claim of remission of duty was denied on the premise that appellant has not taken due care. Against the said order, appellant is before me. 3. Learned Counsel of the appellant draw my attention to the precautions taken by them to avoid a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d use of anti foaming agents. Nothing more has been suggested by the adjudicating authority to avoid auto combustion. Therefore, remission of duty cannot be denied in the light of decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and this Tribunal. 8. In the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has observed as under: "5.....In the present case it is admitted that the molasses stored in the storage in Tanks no. 2 and 4 were destroyed. The loss occurred due to internal combustion. It is not disputed by the Excise Authorities that such loss was due to internal combustion. What is, however, alleged is that there is no proper precaution taken by the petitioner to avoid such combustion in relation to Tanks n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t out by the appellants, we hold that the demand for duty is not sustainable. Similar cases we note came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after examining the facts held similarly. The cases cited and relied upon by the appellant decided by this Tribunal are the case of Saraya Sugar Mills v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 264 and Shankar Sugar Mills v. CCE reported in 1994 (71)ELT 753 (Tribunal) = 1994 (52) ECR 354." 10. In the case of UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (supra), again this Tribunal has observed as under: "3. The only ground on which the Commissioner has rejected the request for remission of duty to the party is that they stored more molasses in the Masonry Tank No. 1 than its storage capacity and that they did not ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by ld. AR. It is undisputed that 3164.900 MT of molasses stored in the molasses tank got burnt and become unfit for distillation and marketing due to auto-combustion. It is not the case of the department that the quantity of molasses lost in fire claimed by the assessee is incorrect or that molasses were removed from the factory clandestinely. Only ground in appeal is that the accident of burning could have been avoided by taking adequate precaution. In this regard, we may note that there is nothing in the report of the State Excise officer who visited the site for inspection which may suggest that the respondent was negligent or he failed to take steps to ensure cooling of the pipeline leading to the molasses tank and also recirculation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
