Duty on remitted molasses remains payable when later removed and sold, since prior remission does not create res judicata.

Remission granted for molasses on the basis that they were unfit for consumption did not prevent a later duty demand when the goods were subsequently removed and sold as fertilizer. The earlier remission order did not operate as res judicata because the later removal created a fresh cause of action. On the facts, the molasses had not lost all utility and were only sub-standard, not wholly unfit for consumption within Rule 49. Goods retaining some use remained liable to duty, and the demand was therefore sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded on molasses after remission had been granted under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, and whether the earlier remission order barred the demand on the ground of res judicata.

Analysis: Remission had been granted on the basis that the molasses were unfit for consumption, but the goods were subsequently removed and sold as fertilizer. The later removal gave rise to a fresh cause of action, so the earlier remission order did not operate as res judicata. On the facts, the molasses had not lost all utility; they remained usable for some purpose and were at best sub-standard goods, not goods wholly unfit for consumption within Rule 49. Goods of that kind continued to attract duty.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustainable and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Subsequent removal of goods after remission does not attract res judicata, and goods that retain some use remain liable to duty even if they are not fit for their original intended use.

---