TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Remission granted for damaged molasses, reassessment ordered for remaining quantity.</h1> The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting remission for 15,651 qtls of molasses that couldn't fit in the tanks due to temperature damage. ... Because of bumper production of molasses, they were kept in open tank as steel tank have already been filled – molasses stored in open tank damaged due to rise in temperature - loss being by natural causes, can’t be prevented, is not liable for Ex. duty – steel tank had capacity of 120 qtls., but only 107.828 qtls. were kept therein, which isn’t a bonafide act – remission is allowed to15,651 qtls of molasses not to balance quantity, which could be kept in the steel tank – appeal partly allowed Issues: Appeal against rejection of application for remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.Analysis:1. Facts of the Case: The appellant, engaged in sugar and molasses manufacturing, faced material damage to molasses stored in an open tank due to a rise in temperature beyond its control. The appellant applied for remission under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules.2. Appellant's Submission: The appellant argued that the bumper production of sugar led to excess molasses, which couldn't be moved due to regulations. Despite efforts to prevent damage, the rise in temperature caused irreversible harm, justifying remission.3. Department's Argument: The Department contended that the appellant hadn't fully utilized available storage capacity, casting doubt on the necessity of storing molasses in an open tank. They claimed the storage in the open tank was unauthorized.4. Tribunal's Findings: The Tribunal acknowledged the damage caused by the temperature rise but noted discrepancies in the appellant's storage utilization. While accepting the need for open storage due to excess molasses, they found the appellant at fault for not fully utilizing available tanks.5. Decision: The Tribunal allowed remission for the quantity of molasses that couldn't fit in the tanks but denied it for the rest. The appellant was granted remission for 15,651 qtls of molasses but directed a reassessment of liability for the remaining quantity stored in the steel tank.6. Conclusion: The appeal was partially allowed, with a specific quantity of molasses eligible for remission based on the Tribunal's assessment of storage capacity and damage due to temperature variations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
