https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51690 The case involved manufacturers seeking remission of duty on lost molasses due to natural causes. The jurisdictional Commissioner rejected the remission application, alleging it was to cover up a shortage. The appellants argued the loss was below the 2% limit and filed timely. The department later dropped a duty demand, ruling out clandestine removal. The appellants challenged the decision citing compliance with Rule 49 and permissible loss interpretations. The judgment emphasized adherence to circulars and past decisions, setting aside the Commissioner's order and granting relief to the appellants. en-us Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:35:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51690 The case involved manufacturers seeking remission of duty on lost molasses due to natural causes. The jurisdictional Commissioner rejected the remission application, alleging it was to cover up a shortage. The appellants argued the loss was below the 2% limit and filed timely. The department later dropped a duty demand, ruling out clandestine removal. The appellants challenged the decision citing compliance with Rule 49 and permissible loss interpretations. The judgment emphasized adherence to circulars and past decisions, setting aside the Commissioner's order and granting relief to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51690