9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their claim of remission of duty was denied. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. They store molasses in the storage tank. On 12-2-2008, 46,865.30 quintals of molasses stored in storage tank was burned which was reportedly due to pressure of stored molasses. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nk. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss than the capacity of the storage tank, there may be some other reason for bursting of the tank. Moreover, the storage tank was duly tested before put to use and the appellant has not provided the reports or investigation conducted by the other authorities to the ld. Commissioner to ascertain the cause of accident. Therefore, ld. Commissioner has rightly denied the claim of remission of duty. Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ident 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 dul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was negligent in a particular way the allegation of negligence is not sustainable. In these terms, I hold that the appellant is entitled for claim of remission of duty without relying on the case laws relied upon by the appellant. 7. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any. (Dictated and pronounced i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
