Remission of duty on destroyed molasses cannot be denied merely for alleged inadequate safeguards when goods are unusable.

Remission of duty on destroyed molasses could not be refused on the extraneous ground that the assessee failed to take proper precautions to safeguard the goods. The goods were found unusable, and their destruction had taken place in the presence of Central Excise officers. On those facts, the Tribunal treated the alleged lack of precaution as insufficient to defeat remission where the goods were unfit for use or marketing. The rejection of remission was therefore unsustainable, and relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty on destroyed molasses was liable to be rejected on the ground that proper precautions were not taken to safeguard the goods.

Analysis: The goods were found to be unusable, and the destruction was stated to have taken place in the presence of Central Excise officers. The rejection order proceeded on the absence of proper precaution to safeguard the goods. The Tribunal held that, where the goods are unfit for use or marketing, refusal of remission merely because the applicant allegedly failed to take proper safeguard is an extraneous ground.

Conclusion: The rejection of remission of duty could not be sustained, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---