AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as if it were an appeal filed before the Tribunal. Appeal at S.No. 2 is a sequel to the order of the Collector of Central Excises, Meerut, also mentioned above. 2. The facts relating to Appeal No. 734/81-D, briefly stated, are that M/s. Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. Shamli, (hereinafter the "appellants") are engaged in the manufacture inter alia of molasses. By the Finance Bill (2) of 1980, a specific entry was inserted in the First Schedule (hereafter "CET") to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereafter the "Act"), for molasses (item No. 15 CC). It appears that appellants made a (false, according to the department) declaration filed by them of the stock of molass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n due course, the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut, passed an, order on 3-7-1981 directing the appellants to pay duty on the 7,302.25 Qtls. of molasses removed during the period from 19-6-1980 to 9-7-1980 and the 31,844.70 Qtls. referred to above. He also confiscated the stock found in the factory premises but allowed an option to the appellant to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,000. No penalty was, however, imposed on the appellant. The Collector held that book transfer of the stock to the distillery though the stock physically continued to remain in the appellant's factory premises did not amount to removal for Central Excise purposes. Therefore, the appellants should have declared the stocks on hand as also paid duty on the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and when required, with the full knowledge and consent of the Jurisdictional Central Excise Officers as well as the State Excise Officers who were exercising control over the storage and sale of molasses under the State Excise Law. 3. In its order-in-appeal dated 30-10-1981, the Board held that, in terms of Rule 9A(i)(ii), the rate of duty applicable in the present case would be as applicable on the date of actual removal of the excisable and dutiable goods from the factory of manufacture, whatever might have been the "established practice" in the factory in the matter of transfer of ownership of the goods and book adjustment. In this view, the Collector's order demanding duty under Rule 9(2) was confirmed by the Board. With regard to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng receipt of the molasses by distillery. At page 73 of the paper book is an extract from the stock register bearing signature dated 17-6-1980 of the Asstt. Excise Commissioner (molasses), Central zone, Bareilly. The extract shows the actual stock as nil. However, in response to a query from the Bench, the Consultant fairly stated that there was no record of the appellants having informed in writing the Central Excise officers that there was only book transfer of molasses from the appellants to the distillery, the physical removal, taking place only later in convenient lots to the distillery. It was, however, submitted that the pre-budget stock/was verified by the Central Excise department and certified to be 'nil'. When we enquired whether....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to earlier. But we note no penalty was imposed on the appellants. 9. For the respondent, it was submitted by the learned Sr. D.R. that the so-called practice could not over-ride the statutory requirements. The appellants had not produced any evidence that the Central Excise department had knowledge of, and concurred with, the so-called practice. 10. We have considered the submission of both sides. It is clear that molasses was not being physically removed concurrently with book transfers thereof from the appellants to the distillery though the book transfers were apparently being accepted as removals of the goods for the purpose of state excise. Molasses does not fall in the list of goods on which states can levy excise duty. On the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on they are captively consumed in the appellant's own factory or in another factory belonging to the appellant. The exemption will thus come into play only when the goods are sought to be removed for the specified purpose, not otherwise. 12. The contention that the assessments in RT.12 returns at 'nil' rate of duty had been completed by the Central Excise officials and therefore these could not have been re-opened is, in our opinion, not tenable in the circumstances of the present case. As noted earlier, no evidence has been produced before either the Collector or us to show that the Central Excise department had acquiesed in, or agreed to, the so-called "practice" of book transfers without physical removal. In fact, the consultant fairly ....