Burnt molasses as waste not liable as molasses, and protest before the Superintendent satisfied refund procedure.

Burnt molasses cleared in solid form as waste were treated as damaged residue, not as molasses for excise duty purposes, so the duty demand was unsustainable and refund could not be denied on that basis. A protest letter addressed to the jurisdictional Superintendent with a copy to the Assistant Commissioner amounted to sufficient compliance with Rule 233B, so the refund claim was not time-barred for defective protest. The refund order was upheld in full and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether burnt molasses cleared in solid form as waste attracted duty liability as molasses. (ii) Whether the refund claim was time-barred for alleged non-compliance with the protest requirement under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Issue (i): The burnt molasses in question were treated as waste in the form of a solid residue and not as molasses. The earlier Tribunal decision relied upon by the lower appellate authority applied to the same type of damaged material, and the fact that duty had been paid before seeking refund did not alter the character of the goods for duty purposes.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable, and the refund claim could not be rejected on the ground that the goods were excisable molasses.

Issue (ii): The protest letter was addressed to the jurisdictional Superintendent with a copy to the Assistant Commissioner. Even otherwise, filing the protest before the Superintendent constituted proper compliance with Rule 233B, as the Superintendent functioned within the departmental hierarchy and the assessee had substantially complied with the procedural requirement.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not time-barred on the alleged ground of defective protest, and the requirement of Rule 233B stood satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The order granting refund was upheld in full, and the departmental challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Burnt molasses cleared as waste are not treated as molasses for duty liability, and a protest filed before the jurisdictional Superintendent with intimation to the Assistant Commissioner amounts to sufficient compliance with the protest requirement under the Central Excise Rules.

---