Molasses loss in sugar industry justified duty remission despite delayed intimation, where the loss stayed within condonable limits.

In sugar industry cases involving molasses, duty remission may be allowed where the loss during handling and storage is assessed as a condonable percentage loss and falls within the permissible limit. The Tribunal relied on Board circulars and earlier decisions treating loss below 2% as condonable, and held that this substantive entitlement was not defeated by alleged non-compliance with the 24-hour intimation procedure. On the facts, the stock loss was less than 1% and was not disputed by the Revenue, so the procedural objection did not bar remission. The rejection of the claim was set aside and remission of duty was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on molasses destroyed during handling and storage was allowable despite alleged non-compliance with the 24-hour intimation procedure.

Analysis: The appellants were engaged in manufacture of sugar and the molasses arose as a by-product. The loss in stock was found to be less than 1% and was not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal relied on the Board's circulars and its earlier decisions holding that, in sugar industries, loss of molasses is to be assessed on a percentage basis and that loss below 2% is condonable. On that basis, the procedural objection regarding delayed intimation did not defeat the substantive claim for remission.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was allowed and the order rejecting the claim was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the demand or denial of remission did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: In sugar industry cases, loss of molasses measured as a condonable percentage loss may justify remission of duty, and substantive entitlement is not defeated where the loss is within the permissible limit.

---