2000 (1) TMI 513 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal quashes order, deems proceedings premature, affirms jurisdiction, reduces penalty for storing non-duty paid Molasses.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned order, holding the proceedings premature due to a pending remission request before the Commissioner. It also affirmed ... Remission of duty Issues:1. Duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellants for storing non-duty paid Molasses without approval.2. Appellants' argument for remission of duty due to spontaneous combustion of molasses.3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of 35B regarding loss of goods.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the duty demand and penalty confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the appellants for storing non-duty paid Molasses without approval. The Department alleged a contravention of Central Excise Rules and Trade Notice No. 259/88. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and penalty, which was upheld on appeal, albeit with a reduced penalty of Rs. 1,000.2. The appellants argued for remission of duty on the burnt molasses due to spontaneous combustion beyond their control. They had submitted plans for storage approved by the Superintendent and notified authorities about the incident. The appellants contended that they were entitled to remission under the proviso to Rule 49, and any liability should be limited to not informing jurisdictional Officers about the storage.3. The Tribunal considered the jurisdiction issue under the first proviso to Section 35B(1) raised by the Department. The Department claimed the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction as the molasses were stored without prior permission. However, the approved plans showed the kutchha pits were within the factory premises, negating the Department's contention. The Tribunal rejected the preliminary jurisdictional point, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal held the proceedings premature due to the pending remission request before the Commissioner, quashing the impugned order. The Tribunal also dismissed the Department's jurisdictional objection, affirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.