https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91161 A communication merely conveying rejection of a request to destroy molasses was treated as an intimation and not as an appealable order. The text notes that the aggrieved party could have sought a formal speaking order and then pursued remedies, but did not do so. It also records that, once destruction was refused, duty liability arose, and the refund claim for duty paid under protest was not accepted. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the refund rejection sustained. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91161 A communication merely conveying rejection of a request to destroy molasses was treated as an intimation and not as an appealable order. The text notes that the aggrieved party could have sought a formal speaking order and then pursued remedies, but did not do so. It also records that, once destruction was refused, duty liability arose, and the refund claim for duty paid under protest was not accepted. The appeal was therefore dismissed and the refund rejection sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91161