https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265599 Duty demand on molasses destroyed in a factory could not be sustained after remission had already been granted for the same quantity of goods. The prior remission order was treated as determinative of the duty consequence, so the remaining demand arising from the same loss was held unsustainable. Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules was also read liberally where there was no evidence of mala fide intent to evade duty. On that basis, the duty demand failed. en-us Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Oct 2015 19:49:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265599 Duty demand on molasses destroyed in a factory could not be sustained after remission had already been granted for the same quantity of goods. The prior remission order was treated as determinative of the duty consequence, so the remaining demand arising from the same loss was held unsustainable. Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules was also read liberally where there was no evidence of mala fide intent to evade duty. On that basis, the duty demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=265599