<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (10) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83620</link>
    <description>Duty remission was held admissible where molasses were destroyed by auto-combustion arising from an inherent chemical process, and the demand could not survive in the absence of negligence or avoidable delay by the assessee. The record showed timely preventive and mitigating steps, including recirculation, ventilation, cooling and prompt intimation to excise authorities, and departmental inspection confirmed the destruction. On those facts, the loss was treated as a natural phenomenon inherent in the goods, so the department had to prove fault before denying remission. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, including refund of duty paid under protest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:03:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120765" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 128 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83620</link>
      <description>Duty remission was held admissible where molasses were destroyed by auto-combustion arising from an inherent chemical process, and the demand could not survive in the absence of negligence or avoidable delay by the assessee. The record showed timely preventive and mitigating steps, including recirculation, ventilation, cooling and prompt intimation to excise authorities, and departmental inspection confirmed the destruction. On those facts, the loss was treated as a natural phenomenon inherent in the goods, so the department had to prove fault before denying remission. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, including refund of duty paid under protest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>