Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ug Sugar & Industries Ltd vs C.C.E., Meerut-Ii on 28 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 28.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/3315/2009 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Memorandum Order No.19/Commr./MRT-II/09, dated 28.08.2009, passed by C.C.E., Meerut-II]
M/s. UG Sugar & Industries Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Meerut-II Respondents
Appearance Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the appellants Shri MS Negi, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.50903/2014, dated 28.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar as also molasses. They filed various applications for remission of duty in respect of molasses lost during the storage. The said remission applications stand rejected vide the impugned order passed in de novo proceedings.
2. The appellants have, before the Commissioner (Appeals), pleaded as under:-
(1) That the following facts are not disputed rather admitted.
(a) That the loss had occurred.
(b) That the loss was within permissible limit of 2% as prescribed by CBEC.
(c) That the loss occurred during the period of storage including at the time of clearances.
(d) That there was no removal of any quantity of molasses.
3. The also relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal as also the circular issued by the Board vide Circular No.261/15CC/82-CX-8, dated 18.07.1983, which is to the effect that the storage loss upto 2% of the total molasses stored should be condoned.
4. The Commissioner is not disputing the fact that the storage loss is less than 2%. However, he took into the consideration of the decision of the Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Kesar Enterprises Ltd. (Sugar Div.) Vs. CCE, Meerut-II [2008 (221) ELT 321 (All.)]. It stands held in the said decision that the assessee is under an obligation to establish that despite due precaution and care, a particular quantity of loss sought to be condoned has actually been occasioned and could not have been avoided.
5. The submissions of the Ld. Advocate is that the said decision was taken note of by the Tribunal in the case of Rosa Sugar Works Vs. CCE, Lucknow [2009 (241) ELT 218 (Tri.-Del.)]. He also draw my attention to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Allahabad [2011 (274) ELT 587 (Tri. - Del.)] and other decisions of the Tribunals, wherein it was held that the molasses loss being less than 2% was condoned, in terms of the Board circular. Reference can be made to the Tribunals decisions in the following cases:-
(i) Mawana Sugar Works Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2008 (227) ELT 438 (Tri.- Del.)].
(ii) Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2008 (214) ELT 303 (Tri.- Del.)].
(iii) Titawi Sugar Complex Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2004 (172) ELT 119 (Tri.- Del.)].
(iv) Mawana Sugar Works Vs. CCE, Meerut-I [2009 (235) ELT 100 (Tri.- Del.)].
6. After hearing the Ld. Advocate, I find that molasses, by their very nature, are decreased in quantities on account of weather factor like excessive heat, fermentation, evaporation, etc. The loss has occurred in the present case while the molasses were stored in the steel tanks. As such, the appellants have said to have taken all the precautions by storing the molasses in the steel tanks so as to avoid their loss. As such, the various decisions of the Tribunal referred supra are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Further, the Board laid down that 2% molasses loss should be condoned is also in favour of the appellants.
7. Apart from the above, I find that there is no evidence of any removal of molasses in which case it has to be held that the same stands lost during storage. Accordingly, I find no justification in the impugned order of the Commissioner in rejecting the appellants remission application. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-