2008 (8) TMI 350

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ucknow. – held that - The storage losses claimed were 1.88% and 1.91% respectively of total molasses stored during the relevant period. The Appellant claimed remission of duty as within the permissible limit of 2% as prescribed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs vide letter No. 261/15/82-CX.8, dated 18-7-1983. - . In the present case, there is no dispute that the handling loss is before remo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ve been rejected by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow. 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it is seen that there is no dispute that the losses occurred during storage due to driage/seepage at the time of filling of tankers or dispatch of goods. The storage losses claimed were 1.88% and 1.91% respectively of total molasses stored during the relevant period. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2008 (227) E.L.T. A31 (S.C.). In the present case, there is no dispute that that the losses were occurred due to driage at the time of filling of tankers of finished goods. It has been held by the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Sugar Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. 300 (T - D) that Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 does not specifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X