Remission of duty on storage loss of molasses cannot be denied for missing 24-hour intimation where loss is not accidental.

Remission of duty for molasses lost during storage could not be denied merely because the assessee failed to intimate the Revenue within 24 hours, since that intimation requirement applied to loss or destruction by natural causes or accident and not to storage loss. The Tribunal also noted that Board guidance treated storage loss in molasses up to 2% as condonable, and the loss here was only 0.72%. On that basis, denial of remission was unsustainable, and the consequential demand and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on loss of molasses during storage could be denied for failure to intimate the Revenue within 24 hours and whether the consequential demand and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The remission application was rejected only on the ground that intimation was not given within 24 hours. The 24-hour intimation requirement was held applicable to loss or destruction of goods by natural causes or accident. As the loss in the present case arose during storage and not from any such accident, denial of remission on that ground was held unsustainable. The Tribunal also relied on the Board's circular recognising that storage loss in molasses up to 2% was condonable, and the loss here was only 0.72%.

Conclusion: The denial of remission of duty was not justified, and the consequential demand and penalty were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the assessee obtained relief against the order rejecting remission and confirming duty demand and penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A remission claim for storage loss cannot be denied merely for want of 24-hour intimation where the loss is not due to natural cause or accident, and condonable storage loss within the recognised limit does not justify confirmation of consequential demand or penalty.

---