Remission of duty on destroyed molasses and limitation for unsettling nil assessments were both upheld as decisive legal points.

Remission of duty was available where molasses became unfit for consumption or marketing, were destroyed only after Collector's permission and under departmental supervision, and the statutory conditions against re-entry into the market were satisfied. The article also notes that a nil assessment recorded on RT-12 returns could not be disturbed beyond the normal six-month limitation under Section 11A; because no extended period was invoked and the notice was issued late, the demand was time-barred. On both merits and limitation, the duty demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether remission of duty was available on molasses destroyed after deterioration in katcha pits, and (ii) whether the duty demand was barred by limitation in view of the nil assessment recorded on RT-12 returns.

Issue (i): Whether remission of duty was available on molasses destroyed after deterioration in katcha pits.

Analysis: The goods had become unfit for consumption or marketing and were destroyed only after permission of the Collector and under the supervision of departmental officers. The record showed that the Department had been aware of the storage in katcha pits and had not objected when permission for destruction was sought. The second proviso to Rule 49 contemplated non-levy of duty on goods claimed to be unfit for consumption or marketing, subject to conditions ensuring that such goods did not re-enter the market, and those conditions stood satisfied.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was available, and the demand failed on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand was barred by limitation in view of the nil assessment recorded on RT-12 returns.

Analysis: The RT-12 returns had been assessed at nil duty by the Superintendent, so any attempt to disturb that assessment had to be made within the normal period of six months under Section 11A. No extended period was invoked, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period.

Conclusion: The demand was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand was unsustainable both on merits and on limitation, and the assessee succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where excisable goods are destroyed as unfit for consumption or marketing under departmental supervision and the statutory conditions for non-levy are satisfied, duty remission cannot be denied merely on the basis of a disputed storage issue; any attempt to unsettle a nil assessment must also comply with the applicable limitation period.

---