Remission for molasses shortage and condonable loss under excise rules was treated as a debatable issue, with interim stay granted.

The document addresses whether an alleged molasses shortage required remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, or could be treated as a permissible loss. It notes the view that remission for the shortage could be decided only by a Commissioner where the duty involved exceeded the prescribed limit, while the appellant relied on the Board's circular treating up to 2% loss in stored molasses as condonable. The Tribunal treated the issue as debatable and found a prima facie case to examine whether the remand was warranted, granting interim stay against the impugned order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the remand order was justified in relation to the alleged shortage of molasses and whether the matter involved a remission issue under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 or only a permissible loss not requiring remission.

Analysis: The order records that the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter on the footing that remission in respect of the shortage could be decided only by an officer of the rank of Commissioner because the Joint Commissioner's power under Rule 21 was limited where the duty involved did not exceed Rs. 5,000/-. It also notes the appellant's contention that, on the Board's circular, shortage up to 2% in stored molasses was a condonable loss and not a shortage requiring remission. The Tribunal found that the issue was debatable and that a prima facie case existed for examining whether the remand was warranted.

Conclusion: Interim stay was granted against the impugned order and the application was allowed; the appeal remained pending for final hearing.

---