TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government Upholds Order on Duty Demand for Lost Molasses</h1> <h3>In Re : Upper Doab Sugar Mills</h3> In Re : Upper Doab Sugar Mills - 2016 (343) E.L.T. 742 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Remission of duty on molasses lost due to bursting of storage tank.2. Demand of duty and interest on lost molasses.3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.Detailed Analysis:1. Remission of Duty on Molasses Lost:The applicant, engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses, reported a loss of 39,282.40 quintals of molasses due to the bursting of a storage tank. They applied for remission of duty under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I, rejected the remission application, stating the loss was not due to natural reasons or unavoidable accidents. This decision was challenged by the applicant before the CESTAT, but no stay or final order was produced.2. Demand of Duty and Interest:The Additional Commissioner issued a show cause notice demanding Rs. 30,34,566/- under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, along with interest under Section 11AB. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and interest but set aside the penalty. The applicant contended that duty is linked to the physical removal of goods, which did not occur in this case. However, the Government observed that duty liability arises upon manufacture, and payment is due at the time of removal, which includes destruction or loss within the factory. Hence, the duty on the lost molasses was rightly confirmed.3. Imposition of Penalty under Rule 25:The Department argued that the penalty under Rule 25 should be imposed as the applicant failed to safeguard government revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the penalty, stating there was no intent to evade duty. However, the Government noted that intent to evade is not a prerequisite for contraventions under parts (a), (b), and (c) of Rule 25. Since the applicant violated provisions of Rules 4, 6, and 8 by not accounting for the duty on lost molasses, the penalty was rightly imposed by the original adjudicating authority.Conclusion:The Government upheld the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of duty and interest but modified it to reinstate the penalty under Rule 25. The revision applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
