Remission of excise duty on molasses loss denied where negligence and inadequate safety measures were proved.

Remission of central excise duty on loss of molasses was denied because the loss resulted from cracks in the tank after it was hit, and the inspection record showed negligence by the assessee. The circumstances were distinguished from accidental loss by fire, and the assessee failed to prove that due care and proper safety measures had been taken. As the loss was not shown to arise from accident or natural cause, remission was unavailable and the penalty under the Central Excise Rules was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of central excise duty was admissible on the loss of molasses, and whether the penalty imposed under the Central Excise Rules was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The loss was found to have occurred because the tank developed cracks after being hit, and the record, including the inspection report, showed negligence on the part of the appellant. The circumstances were held to be distinguishable from cases of accidental loss by fire, and the appellant failed to establish that due care and proper safety measures had been taken. The loss was therefore not treated as one caused by accident or any natural cause.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was not available and the penalty under the Central Excise Rules was upheld.

---