9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... torage tank. So the appellant could be negligent. Moreover, before putting the storage tank into use, the storage tank was duly tested. Therefore, the appellant has taken all precautions before storing the molasses in the said storage tank. No prudent men will invite accident to incur losses. Revenue had not come with any tangible findings that appellant was negligent by not following the precautions. In fact, in show cause notice, it is recorded that the storage capacity was more than the quantity stored. Moreover, storage tank was duly tested before put to use. Then what more precautions were required by the appellant to avoid the accident. In the absence of any of these requirements it cannot be said that appellant was negligent while st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tank. Moreover, the show cause notice itself is certifying that before storage tank is put to use they are duly tested and found to be in order. It is also a fact that due to pressure stored in molasses the storage tank was burst and there was a loss of 46,865.30 quintals of molasses. As these facts are not in dispute the appellant is entitled to claim remission of duty. As when accident took place the appellant immediately reported to the concerned authorities and accident did not took place due to fault of the appellant. Therefore, appellant is entitled for the claim of remission of duty as held by Hon ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Company Ltd. - 1999 (82) ECR 246 (All.), this Tribunal in the case of Balra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses whereas 60,424 quintal of molasses were stored. The storage tank was duly checked and tested before put to use. It is also a fact that accident took place on 12-2-2008 wherein 46,865.30 quintal of molasses were destroyed. From the facts of the case, it is not coming out how the appellant was negligent in storing the molasses. It is not a case where appellant has stored more quantity than the capacity of the storage tank. So the appellant could be negligent. Moreover, before putting the storage tank into use, the storage tank was duly tested. Therefore, the appellant has taken all precautions before storing the molasses in the said storage tank. No prudent men will invite accident to incur losses. Revenue had not come with any tangible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
