<?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>2003 (3) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52173</link>
    <description>Remission of duty for shortage of molasses in storage was denied because the claimant failed to prove that the loss occurred in storage due to natural causes under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Although the shortage was less than 2% of production, that fact alone did not establish allowable storage loss; the record showed repeated stock verification by the dip method, which could not later be disowned. The unexplained shortage over a short winter period, without cogent evidence of evaporation, foam formation or any other natural cause, was insufficient. The earlier order in the appellants&#039; own case concerned a different tank and period and was not helpful; the appeal failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 10:16:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90651" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 220 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52173</link>
      <description>Remission of duty for shortage of molasses in storage was denied because the claimant failed to prove that the loss occurred in storage due to natural causes under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Although the shortage was less than 2% of production, that fact alone did not establish allowable storage loss; the record showed repeated stock verification by the dip method, which could not later be disowned. The unexplained shortage over a short winter period, without cogent evidence of evaporation, foam formation or any other natural cause, was insufficient. The earlier order in the appellants&#039; own case concerned a different tank and period and was not helpful; the appeal failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>