2013 (9) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Petitioner vide application dated 20.12.2003 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise claimed remission of excise duty under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002 on 5610.50 quintals of molasses produced during the season 2002-03 as storage loss due to natural decay. Petitioner thereafter was served with a show cause notice dated 30.7.2004 issued by the Assistant Commissioner,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before the Excise Tribunal, preferred a revision under Section 35-EE of the Act before the State Government which was rejected on 25.8.2009. Thus, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the aforesaid orders dated 25.0.8.2009 passed by the State Government. Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n was rejected and the said order was not challenged any further, the authorities are justified in confirming the excise duty on the aforesaid quantity of molasses treating it to have been removed without payment of excise duty. Therefore, petitioner is not entitle to any relief claimed in the writ petition. The short issue arising in this writ petition is whether petitioner had suffered loss o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise, as the case may be, on being satisfied that they were so destroyed may remit the duty payable on such goods subject to conditions, if any, specified. The petitioner applied for such remission but the aforesaid application was rejected vide order dated 10.7.2006. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner at any stage. It has not been challenged even in the present writ petition.....