2005 (11) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssing by the appellants. The quantity of sugar involved in this case is for the period 1978-79 to 1983-84. 2. Ld. Advocate, Shri K.P. Dey for the appellants, submits that the quality of the sugar lost due to moisture is beyond the capacity to control as brown sugar could not be re-processed in their factory. He submits that in an identical case, this Tribunal vide its Order No. A-1093/Kol/2001, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... care of the case which have produced and any loss on that, the duty liability has to be discharged by the appellants. 4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is admitted fact that the quantity of 332.44 qtls. of brown sugar was lost due to deterioration in quality. It is also on record that this quantity of brown sugar is unfit for human consumption as per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llants are not able to market the same. Since the appellants are not able to re-process the said product, which are declared as unfit for human consumption, I find no justification in confirmation of duty against the appellants. 5. It may be also mentioned here that as per the direction on this Tribunal, the appellants applied for remission of duty to the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X