TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (2) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to the appellant had occurred during the period from November 2002 to October 2003 as a normal and genuine loss. It was pleaded that, such storage loss, which was less than the maximum permissible 2%, as contemplated by the circular of the Board dated 18th July 1983 was condonable. It was prayed that the storage loss of 52.160 MT as shown in the RG-1 register during the month of October 2003 may be condoned in the light of the instructions and clarification issued by the Board. 3. The Commissioner, holding that intimation about the storage loss was not given within 24 hours from the time of occurrence of loss/accident as was required to be done under the Trade Notice No. 206 of 1984, dated 01-12-84, that, the reasons for loss given b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s found deficient in quantity has been made. By sub-section (1) of Section 5, the Central Government is empowered to make rules for providing for remission of duty of excise leviable on any excisable goods which due to any natural cause are found to be efficient in quantity. Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 is referable to Section 5 of the said Act and provides for remission of duty. Under this rule, the assessee is required to satisfy the Commissioner about the loss of the goods or destruction by natural causes or by an unavoidable accident etc. at any time before removal. On such satisfaction being reached, the Commissioner may remit the duty payable on such goods, subject to such conditions as may be imposed by him by order in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it may not be possible to detect the loss at the time when it occurred as it may be possible in cases of losses due to flood, fire etc. Moreover, such a procedural requirement provided by a Trade Notice cannot override or delimit the operation of the statutory rules. Rule 21 of the said rules does not prescribe such narrow time limit for intimation of the losses. 7.1 In the present case, when the storage loss of 52.160 MT of molasses which undisputedly was only 0.20% of the total quantity and was within the permissible limit of condonable 2%, had occurred, there was no reason for the Commissioner for not giving the benefit of the circular letter dated 18th July 1983 issued by the Board which specifically applied to storage of molasses in ....