9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f excessive heating in the summer months. It is not the case of the Revenue that the quantity which oozed out, was used later. Neither is the case of the Revenue that the quantity in the tank which was 131472.30 quintals as verified by UP Excise authorities, did not reflect the correct quantity stored in tank No. 3. Revenue has not even verified either the quantity stored in the tank or the quantity oozed out. Revenue's appeal is simply based on the survey report of the insurance company which excluded 10% of the quantity stored while sanctioning the insured value. Even if the insurance company did not consider the quantity which had oozed out, there is no denying the fact that the same had occurred due to a natural phenomena. Therefore, no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the tank for air and oxygen due to which the molasses caught fire. The surveyor's report was based on opinion of Shri L.K. Sharma, a sugar technologist. The Inspector of Central Excise visited the site on 16/05/2003 and saw the molasses oozing out from tank No. 3, spreading all around and also being emptied through a pipe and into a kutcha pit. Therefore, according to Revenue, the duty of 10% of the molasses which escaped auto combustion should not be remitted. 4. The learned Asstt. Commissioner (AR) appearing for Revenue stated that due to negligence of the respondent the molasses had oozed out and, therefore, duty on 10% of the total quantity cannot be remitted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very much evident. The Range Officer in his report to the Assistant Commissioner found that all the necessary precautionary devices in the concerned tank were there and there was no proof of negligence or mischief. The fire brigade and survey report of Oriental Insurance Company also confirmed the loss due to spontaneous combustion. 6.1. The remission has to be examined in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Rules states that: Rule 21. Remission of duty, - Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that goods have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or by unavoidable accident or are claimed by the manufacturer as unfit for consumption or for marketing, at any time before removal, he may remit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
