BAJAJ HINDUSTAN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. C.C.E., ALLAHABAD
LAWS(CE)-2015-6-4
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on June 17,2015

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar And Industries Ltd. Appellant
VERSUS
C.C.E., Allahabad Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Ashok Jindal, Member (J)
(2.)THE appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their claim of remission of duty was denied. 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 due to pressure of stored molasses. The appellant filed a claim of remission of duty on 22 -5 -2008. The claim of remission of duty was rejected by the ld. Commissioner on the grounds that the storage tank was not filled to its full capacity, the storage tank was duly tested before put to use and the reports of other authorities was not provided to the ld. Commissioner to felt him satisfied under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 to sanction the claim of remission of duty. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before me.
The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant drew my attention to the show cause notice wherein it has been mentioned that capacity of storage tank is 1 lakh quintals of molasses whereas only 60,424 quintals of molasses was stored which is much 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 remission of duty. As when accident took place the appellant immediately reported to the concerned authorities and accident did not took place due to fault of the appellant. Therefore, appellant is entitled for the claim of remission of duty as held by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Basti Sugar Mills Company Ltd. - : 1999 (82) ECR 246 (All.), this Tribunal in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. - : 2000 (120) E.L.T. 184 (Tri. -Del.), in the case of UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. -, 2001 (187) E.L.T. 490 (Del.), in the case of Kanoria Sugar & General Manufacture Co. Ltd. - : 2013 (292) E.L.T. 387 (Tri. -Del.) and in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. -, 2008 (222) E.L.T. 540 (Tri. -Del.).

(3.)ON the other hand ld. AR oppose the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits 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 rightly denied the claim of remission of duty. She further submits that the case laws relied upon by the ld. Counsel are not relevant to the facts of this case as in those cases the accident took place due to auto combustion which is not in this case. She further submits that the appellant did not provide the list of precautions. In the case of UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (supra) it was more quantity stored than the capacity of the storage tank, therefore, the said decision is not applicable.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.