ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the remission in respect of loss of molasses which is less than 2%.
3. The appellant filed a remission application regarding storage of losses in respect of the molasses for the sugar season 1998-99. The contention of the appellant is that as per the Board’s Circular dated 6.2.82 and 18.7.83 losses in sugar industry up to 2% are condonable. In the present case, loss is less than 2% and these losses are due to various reasons such as evaporation & formation of gases, fermentation due to excessive heat during summer and due to spillage as various places. The contention is also that there is no evidence that the molasses in question was cleared without payment of duty, as the molasses cannot be cleared without the permission of State Excise. The appellant relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shakumbari Sugar and Allied Indus. Ltd. v. CCE and in the case of Seksaria Biswan Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. v. CCE . The appellant also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills vide Final Order No. 1557/2003 dated 29.12.03 whereby the loss which is less than 2% was condoned and the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as .
4. In the present case, as admitted fact is that loss of molasses is less than 2% compared to the total molasses for the sugar year. In a similar situation in the cases relied upon by the appellant, the Tribunal held that loss less than 2% is condonable and remission of duty was granted. In one case, the Revenue filed appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)