LAWS(CE)-2004-1-308

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SIMBHAOLI SUGAR LTD.

Decided On January 13, 2004
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Appellant
V/S
Simbhaoli Sugar Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the impugned order -in -appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the order -in -original confirming the duty demand of Rs. 474/ - for the period September, 1999 to December, 1999.

(2.) The learned SDR has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) could not order the remission duty on the loss of the denatured ethyl alcohol as the loss was not natural and no remission was prayed for by the respondents. To substantiate this contention, she has placed reliance on the ratio of law laid down in Madan Mohan v. Superintendent of Central Excise - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 497. On the other hand, the learned Counsel has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order and contended that the loss of the denatured ethyl alcohol was natural and involved only a petty amount of Central Excise duty and that the respondents in reply to the show cause notice requested for remission of the same by dropping the duty demand, on that account. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is perfectly valid.

(3.) I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. The duty amount evaded by the respondents is Rs. 474/ - on account of storage loss of the denatured ethyl alcohol in their factory. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that this loss was natural due to evaporation as the ethyl alcohol is volatile in nature and was stored in containers which were not air -tight. He has allowed the remission of duty by accepting the plea of the respondents. By remission of duty, he in fact meant dropping of the duty demand. I do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order, if he has used the word remission of duty instead of dropping of the duty therein, while accepting the plea of the respondents that the loss was due to natural cause on account of evaporation of the alcohol. The ratio of law laid down in Madan Mohan's case (supra) is not attracted to the present case. In that case, in a writ petition, the remission of the duty was sought on the tobacco being unfit for human consumption, for having not stored in a warehouse. But the facts of the present case are quite different as detailed above.