2017 (10) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat falls for consideration in this case is regarding the rejection of refund claim filed by the appellant in respect of the duty liability which was discharged on molasses in the month of February 2013. It is the case of the appellant that as a practice, they cleared 3504 MTs of molasses from the manufacturing unit to the storage tanks on payment of duty of Rs. 27,06,840/-. Due to auto combustion and inherent nature of the said product molasses, there was a fire in the tank and the entire quantity got destroyed. It is the case of the appellant that they filed an application for refund of the duty paid, on 3.12.2013 which came to be rejected by both the lower authorities, hence they are before the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel submits tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h to the learned counsel by the Bench, as to why they discharged the duty liability when the goods are stored in the tank within the factory premises, it is her submission that appellant continued the practice of discharging the duty liability. 5.1 In my view, there was no necessity for discharging the duty liability by the appellant if the goods are still in the factory premises. I find that the first appellate authority while upholding the rejection of refund claim has recorded the following findings. "7. The next issue required for determination at (2) , above, whether or not the refund is admissible in terms of the provisions of Section 11B(2)(e) of the CEA, is now taken up. They have urged that granting remission of the duty on t....