Duty on destroyed molasses could not be demanded where departmental permission covered storage and destruction, and Rule 49 did not apply.

Duty could not be demanded on molasses stored in kutcha pits and destroyed with departmental permission where the facts showed express permission for storage and subsequent destruction of deteriorated stock. On that basis, Rule 49 did not require duty to be discharged on the destroyed molasses. Any additional liability said to arise from the bond could only be enforced separately in accordance with law and could not expand the Tribunal's power beyond the statutory rules. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded on molasses stored in kutcha pits and destroyed with departmental permission notwithstanding Rule 49 and the bond executed by the assessee.

Analysis: The assessee had express permission to store the molasses in kutcha pits and later to destroy the deteriorated stock. On the facts, Rule 49 did not require discharge of duty on such destroyed molasses. Any additional contractual liability arising from the bond could only be enforced separately in accordance with law, and could not enlarge the Tribunal's power beyond the statutory rules.

Conclusion: The duty demand on the molasses destroyed with departmental permission was unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---