9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y under dispute became unusable which was destroyed and there was no dispute to the fact that the goods were unfit for human consumption. It is also found that, the molasses was susceptible for deterioration due to auto-combustion and due to long storage of molasses in the masonry tank, it quickly deteriorated and became unfit for consumption. Therefre, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and consequently the rejection of remission of duty by the adjudicating authority besides imposition of penalty of ₹ 1 lakh and the demand of interest are set aside as unsustainable in law. - Decided in favour of appellant - Appeal No. E/467/2005 - Final Order No. 41245/2016 - Dated:- 19-7-2016 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and beyond the control of the appellants. The appellants had sought for remission of duty payable on the above said quantity of 4082 MTs of molasses which became unfit for human consumption under erstwhile Rule 49 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and sought permission for the destruction of the same vide their letter dt. 2.3.2001 and 16.3.2001. After a lapse of more than 40 months, they were issued with Show Cause Notice No.42/2004 dt. 26.8.2004. The allegation in the SCN was that molasses became unfit due to negligence and therefore remission of duty that was prayed by the appellant was sought to be denied. A reply to this SCN was filed by the appellants making submission to justify their stand. The adjudicating authority passed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which is nothing but as natural causes. The question of negligence therefore does not come into picture. Commissioner has erred on erroneous assumption of law and therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the payment of duty is not justified at all. Order of the Tribunal is inconformity with the interpretation based on Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and therefore, it does not give rise to any question of law. What to say any substantial question of law. Appeal is devoid of merit. 5. We further find that appellant in the instant case had taken all pre-cautionary steps that can be taken and it was only due to excessive production and generation of molasses that State Government had not given permission to clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
