TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under Chapter sub-heading Nos. 1701.31/1701.39 and 1703.10. They filed a remission application dt. 18-9-1995 under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 to the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gorakhpur submitting that on 16-3-1995 auto-combustion took place in their molasses (covered masonry) Tank No. 1 at about 18.00 hrs. and a quantity of 2249.325 M.T. of Molasses valued at Rs. 45,88,623/- involving Central Excise duty of Rs. 9,17,725/- had been destroyed. The Range staff were informed about the accident on 18-3-1995 at 22.00 hrs. Consequently, they requested for the remission of aforesaid amount of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, they were issued a demand-cum-show cause notice dt. 28-4-1995 in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... know the exact cause of fire which took place in Masonry Tank No. 1 (covered). The Commissioner in his order has observed that most important thing to be noticed in this case is that the Masonry Tank No. 1 had a storage capacity of 18,600 Qtls. whereas the unit stored a quantity of 22,493.25 Qtls. of molasses in it. The Commissioner in his order has concluded that the auto-combustion took place due to negligence on the part of the unit and this cannot be termed as "un-avoidable circumstances" or "natural causes". It is observed that the unit have themselves created the circumstances/chances of loss and damage by storing much more molasses in tank than its approved capacity and therefore, they are not eligible for remission of duty due to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tored molasses is a common phenominon, as we could see from a number of appeals filed by the manufacturers of sugar and molasses for the remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in respect of the molasses so destroyed. The appeals in all these cases are allowed by remitting the duty, as cited below by the appellants before us : (i) Shankar Sugar Mill v. CCE, Allahabad - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 753 (Tri.) (ii) RBNS Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 687 (Tribunal) = 1996 (66) ECR 272 (T) (iii) Babhnan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 346 (Tribunal) = 1994 (55) ECR 2000 (T) (iv) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 110 (T) (v) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector by order in writing. As per the facts before us, the molasses in this case was admittedly unfit for consumption or marketing and as such no duty was liable to be demanded on such molasses. We are further of the view that the quantity of molasses in question is destroyed by natural causes, beyond the control of the appellants. The Tribunal in the past decisions cited supra have constantly been upholding the appeals of the manufacturers for remission of duty in similar cases. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that this is a fit case for remission of duty and the confirmation of duty and imposition of penalty by the Commissioner are not warranted. We therefore allow this appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
