9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar, DR. for the Respondent. [Order] -1. Excise Appeal No. 1346 of 2006 is directed against the order-in-original of the Commissioner of Central Excise dated 30-12-2005 rejecting the appellant's claim for remission of central excise duty due on 1929.55 qtls. of molasses under rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Excise Appeal No. 3439 of 2006 is directed against the order-in-appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) 31-7-2006 upholding the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner dated 28-4-2005 while reducing the penalty to Rs. 20,000/-. By the said order dated 28-4-2005, the Assistant Commissioner had confirmed demand of Rs. 96478/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act read with Rules 4 and 8 of the Central Excise R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spired that the quantity was short by 1929.55 qtls. (out of total quantity of 7,66,175 qtls. produced). According to the appellant, the short-age worked out to 0.25% of the quantity produced which was within the permissible limit of loss as per not only the relevant provisions of the State Excise law but also the circular of the Central Board of Excise Customs No. 261/15/82-CX.8 dated 18-7-1983. Referring to the said circular, learned Counsel submitted that the circular provides for permissible storage loss up to 2% subject to the rider that the molasses must be kept in pucca pits/steel tanks. In the instant case, the molasses had been kept in steel tanks. The appellant's case is, therefore, covered by the Board's circular and the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he own case of the appellant. 6. It is not in dispute that in terms of circular dated 18-7-1983 (supra), loss of molasses up to 2% is to be treated as permissible storage loss subject to the condition that the molasses is stored in pucca pits/steel tanks. There is no dispute in this case that the molasses had been stored in steel tanks as claimed by the appellant. The point for consideration is whether in a case where the loss of molasses kept in steel tanks does not exceed 2%, the person is required to adduce evidence to prove that the loss was on account of natural causes or unavoidable accident. 7. It is true that remission of duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules (which is the relevant provision in the matter) can be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ambit of Rule 21 and the person has to be held entitled to remission of duty subject, of course, to the condition that the molasses had been stored in pucca pits/steel tanks. 8. The basic facts of the case are not being in dispute. I would hold that the appellant had made out a case for remission and the Commissioner committed error in rejecting the claim, and the order dated 31-1-2006 is, therefore, fit to be set aside. That being the position, the order which is subject matter of Excise Appeal No.3439 of 2006, being consequence of rejection of the claim of remission, the impugned order dated 28-4-2006 also is fit to be set aside. 9. The appeals are allowed. The appellants shall be entitled to consequential reliefs, if any. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
