2017 (8) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble to Central Excise duty. They had three steel tanks with a capacity of 44,500 qntls. each for storage of molasses. On 09/02/2006 mollasses from tank nos. 1 and 3 started leaking resulting in loss of quantity. Tank no. 1 got burst resulting in spreading out of whole of molasses stored in the said tank, in the nearby fields. Tank no. 3 also got damaged as a consequence and started leaking molasses. As a result of these happenings, 73127 qntls. of molasses spread over open field and nearby kuchcha pits within the factory premises. The appellants informed the jurisdictional Central Excise, State Excise, Police Station, District Magistrate and Insurance Company. They have filed an application for remission of duty on 62,298.50 qntls. of molas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 11/2006 indicated that the mishap was not due to any criminal conspiracy. The appellants submitted a CA certificate stating that the duty involved in the damaged molasses was not part of insurance claim. He pleaded that the remission is eligible to the appellant in terms of the Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that the remission has been denied by the Commissioner on the ground that the intimation to the proper officer was sent only on 18/02/2006, after a delay of 11 days. Normally, such intimations are to be given within 24 hours. The FIR with police was filed after three days delay. The sample of mo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommodity of the State Excise Authorities. They have clarified that the quantity left over, for which remission is sought for is, not usable and accordingly permitted the appellant to drain out the same. From the appeal records, we noticed that there has been no action by the jurisdictional officer with reference to this mishap. No survey was conducted. No samples were drawn. In such situation, it is not correct for the Original Authority to reject the remission application without any legal basis for the same. As seen from the records that the accident was duly reported and recognized by the Police and State Excise Authorities who had followed up the matter for further action. The Central Excise officers did not follow up for any action. Wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X