OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD. Vs. CCE, LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a careful examination of the records and on hearing both sides, I find that this case is fit for final disposal at this stage. Accordingly, I allow the present application and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.

(2.) THE appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses. In the present appeal, they are aggrieved by rejection, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow, of a remission claim of Rs.6,21,386/ - on a quantity of 15,534.65 qtls. of molasses alleged to have been completely destroyed in auto -combustion on 13.6.95. Ld. Advocate, Sh. Bipin Garg for the appellants submits that neither any show -cause notice was issued to the appellants for rejecting their remission claim nor was any opportunity of personal hearing given to them by the Commissioner. He further submits that no proper order passed by the Commissioner was served on the appellants. What was issued to them was a letter dated 2.11.2000 of the Additional Commissioner (Tech.) of Central Excise Communicating the order of the Commissioner. Referring to the merits of the case, ld. Advocate submits that, on 13.6.95, the auto -combustion of molasses in Masonry Pit No. 10 was duly intimated to the Range Supdt. and the Supdt. inspected the pit on the same day. Subsequently a show -cause notice was issued by the department demanding Central Excise duty on the aforesaid quantity of molasses on the basis of the allegation that the above quantity was stored in an unapproved pit and hence duty of excise was liable to be paid on the said quantity. The show -cause notice was contested by the party, and the dispute was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty. Ld. Counsel submits that the said order of the Additional Commissioner is presently under appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). It is the further case of ld. Advocate that, in the aforesaid order of the Additional Commissioner, the accident of auto -combustion in Pit No. 10 stands accepted whereas, in the Additional Commissioner's letter dated 2.11.2000 communicating the Commissioner's decision, the plea of accident has been rejected. Ld. Counsel seeks to bank on this contradiction for the purpose of the present appeal. In any case of the matter, counsel submits, the matter requires to be remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice.

(3.) LD . SDR, Sh. M.D. Singh is not seriously opposed to remand inasmuch as all the facts of the case are, according to him, not clear from the letter of ld. Additional Commissioner.