9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were detected in tank Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, the two totalling to 3425.36 Qtls. On 30-10-98 the stock of molasses in tank No. 3 was cleared on payment of duty. On 31-10-98, the appellants also paid duty of Rs. 51,747.50 on the quantity of 1034.95 Qtls. of molasses found short in tank No. 3. On 23-11-98, the appellants filed with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise an application for remission of duty on the said quantity of 1034.95 of molasses, on ground that the said quantity was lost due to natural causes beyond their, control. In that application, they, inter alia, submitted that the loss worked out to 1.83% which was below the permissible limit of 2%. The jurisdictional Commissioner, by show cause notice date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e shortage at the time of clearance of the goods on 30-10-98 and would have subsequently filed remission application. The remission application was filed on 23-11-98, within a period of one month from the date of stock verification. There was no period of limitation prescribed for such application under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The department's allegation was that the application was filed as an afterthought so as to cover up the shortage detected by the department. The tenor of the allegation was that the remission application purported to cover up clandestine removal. Clandestine removal has since been ruled out by the Dy. Commissioner. The order of the Dy. Commissioner has become final and binding. Even otherwise, the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 49, the sugar manufacturer had a burden to satisfy the proper officer about the loss or destruction of goods by natural causes. Ld. DR, therefore, seeks to justify the Commissioner's order. 5. I have examined the rival submissions. I find that the only allegation raised in the show cause notice was that the remission application had been filed, in an afterthought, by the appellants in an attempt to cover up the shortage detected by the officers of Central Excise on 28-10-98. The department has no case that the shortage detected by the officers exceeded 2%. In the application for remission, the appellants had categorically stated that the loss of molasses was to the extent of 1.83%. This plea of the appellants has not been rebutted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
