Remission for storage loss of molasses prevailed where loss stayed within the permissible limit and a formal request was filed.

Duty demand and penalty for storage loss of molasses were held unsustainable where the proved loss was 0.93%, within the 2% limit permitted for condonation or remission, and a remission application had been filed before the proper officer and reiterated in defence and hearing. On those facts, the demand could not be upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed, leaving the order setting aside the demand and penalty in place.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand and penalty confirmed on account of storage loss of molasses were sustainable when the loss was within the permissible limit and a remission application had been filed.

Analysis: The storage loss was only 0.93%, which was below the 2% loss permitted by the Board's letter for condonation or remission of duty. The record also showed that an application for remission had been filed before the proper officer and was reiterated in the additional defence reply and at personal hearing.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue failed and the order setting aside the demand and penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the proved storage loss is within the permissible limit for remission and the remission request has been duly made, duty demand and penalty cannot be upheld.

---