9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removal of molasses to katcha pit as removal in accordance with the provisions of law. That being the position, it would not be appropriate to take a view in favor of the appellant that there was no removal. Having treated the storage in katcha pit and removal to the katcha pit as a removal, as per the provisions of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appellant should have discharged the dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses. The appellant during the month of June, 2007 according to their own records reflected that they have cleared 2139.4 MTs of molasses to katcha pit by making entry in the Daily Stock Register (DSR for short). A statement was recorded from the Chief Accounts Officer on 26-11-2007 wherein he admitted that it was a mistake committe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 787 (Tri.-Bang.)] to submit that storage of molasses in katcha pit does not amount to removal and duty on molasses is payable only when molasses is removed from the factory. In this case, the molasses was stored in katcha pit and the appellant paid the duty at the time of removal with interest. It is his submission that there was no omission on the part of the appellant at all. They had paid the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise Rules, 2002, the appellant should have discharged the duty liability without any further proceedings being initiated by the Revenue. In this case, in November, 2007 itself this was brought to the notice of the appellant and the Chief Accounts Officer had given a statement admitting that it was a mistake. Even then the entire liability came to be discharged only in May, 2008. On merits, I do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the submission. Accordingly, I consider that some reduction in penalty is warranted. In view of the above discussion, demand for duty and interest is sustained and upheld. Penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 imposed on the appellant is reduced to ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The appeal is disposed of in above terms. (Order pronounced and dictated in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
