Court upholds excise duty demand and penalty for molasses disposal without payment. Writ petition dismissed.

The Court upheld the excise duty demand and penalty imposed on the petitioner for allegedly disposing of molasses without payment, rejecting the appeal and revision. The petitioner's challenge to the State Government's order via a writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed, as the rejection of the remission application established liability for excise duty payment and penalty due to removal without payment. The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.

---

---

Issues:
1. Claim for remission of excise duty on molasses due to storage loss.
2. Show cause notice for non-payment of excise duty on molasses.
3. Confirmation of excise duty demand and penalty imposition.
4. Dismissal of appeal against the excise duty demand.
5. Rejection of revision by the State Government.
6. Writ petition challenging the State Government's order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing excisable items, sought remission of excise duty on molasses due to storage loss under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules 2002.
2. A show cause notice was issued for allegedly disposing of molasses without paying excise duty, leading to a demand of Rs. 2,80,525 under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the excise duty demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeal).
4. The petitioner's appeal against the order was dismissed, prompting the filing of a revision under Section 35-EE before the State Government, which was rejected.
5. Instead of appealing to the Excise Tribunal, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the State Government's order.
6. The main issue was whether the loss of molasses was due to natural causes or amounted to removal without payment of excise duty, as the application for remission was rejected and not challenged further.
7. Rule 21 allows remission for goods lost by natural causes, but since the petitioner's remission application was rejected and not contested, the loss was deemed not accepted as due to natural causes.
8. As the rejection of the remission application was final and unchallenged, it established that the molasses were removed without payment of excise duty, making the petitioner liable for payment and penalty.
9. The Court found no error in the impugned orders, concluding that the writ petition lacked merit and dismissing it accordingly.

---