https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81377 The Tribunal allowed the appeal against duty demand for molasses produced in 1977-78 and stored in a katcha pit. The appellants, sugar manufacturers, argued that there were no restrictions on storing molasses during that period. They sought permission to destroy the deteriorated molasses, which were unfit for marketing. The Tribunal considered the contractual liability issue and the application of Rule 49, noting that duty recovery required a valid contract, which was absent in this case. As the molasses were unfit for marketing and the appellants requested permission to destroy them, the duty demand was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 31 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:03:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81377 The Tribunal allowed the appeal against duty demand for molasses produced in 1977-78 and stored in a katcha pit. The appellants, sugar manufacturers, argued that there were no restrictions on storing molasses during that period. They sought permission to destroy the deteriorated molasses, which were unfit for marketing. The Tribunal considered the contractual liability issue and the application of Rule 49, noting that duty recovery required a valid contract, which was absent in this case. As the molasses were unfit for marketing and the appellants requested permission to destroy them, the duty demand was deemed unjustified, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81377