2015 (10) TMI 1697

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt. Ms. Ranjana Jha, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their claim of remission of duty was denied. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is a manufacturer of sugar and molasses. They store molasses in the storage tank. On 12-2-2008, 46,865.30 quintals of molasses stored in storage tank was burned which was reportedly....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uch less than the capacity of the storage tank. Moreover, the show cause notice itself is certifying that before storage tank is put to use they are duly tested and found to be in order. It is also a fact that due to pressure stored in molasses the storage tank was burst and there was a loss of 46,865.30 quintals of molasses. As these facts are not in dispute the appellant is entitled to claim rem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that in this case the molasses were stored less than the capacity of the storage tank, there may be some other reason for bursting of the tank. Moreover, the storage tank was duly tested before put to use and the appellant has not provided the reports or investigation conducted by the other authorities to the ld. Commissioner to ascertain the cause of accident. Therefore, ld. Commissioner has rig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tested before put to use. It is also a fact that accident took place on 12-2-2008 wherein 46,865.30 quintal of molasses were destroyed. From the facts of the case, it is not coming out how the appellant was negligent in storing the molasses. It is not a case where appellant has stored more quantity than the capacity of the storage tank. So the appellant could be negligent. Moreover, before putting....