9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess production of Molasses correspondingly. This excess production of molasses resulted in storage of the molasses in the Masonry tanks. The appellants contended that condition of the masonry tank was very good at the time of storing of the molasses and the roof of the tank was also very strong. Appellants had taken all the pre-cautionary measures to properly maintain the tanks in which the excess molasses was stored. The State Government controls the clearance of molasses and only on permission given by the State Government molasses can be cleared. The State govt. had not granted permission to clear the excess quantity of molasses stored in the masonry tank and the product being susceptible for auto-combustion reaction, the molasses would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ligence is without any basis and contrary to facts. The other points elaborated in the grounds were also reiterated by learned counsel. 3. The Ld.A.R for the Revenue stated that the order passed by the learned Commissioner was legal and proper and warranted no interference. 4. Having heard both sides at length, we find that the issue is no longer res integra and stands covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court rendered in the case of CCE Allahabad Vs Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. 2008 (223) ELT 34 (All.). The relevant para-4 of the said High Court s order is reproduced as under :- "4. From reading of the aforesaid provision, it is seen that if goods have been lost by natural causes, duty is not payable. The question of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for consumption. We also note that the appellant had taken enough measures as seen from the records produced before us. The contention of the appellant that storage of molasses is also under the control of the State Pollution Control Board and if the condition of the masonry tank was not good, the Pollution Control Board would not have permitted storage of the molasses in the masonry tank, was not disputed to be untrue by Revenue. 6. In view of foregoing discussion and finding, we hold that the impugned order is liable be set aside and consequently the rejection of remission of duty by the adjudicating authority besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh and the demand of interest are set aside as unsustainable in law. Appeal is allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
