TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (10) TMI 303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jecting the refund claim filed before him by the present respondent, M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation, Doiwala, Dehra Dun. The said refund claim of the respondent was in respect of duty paid by them on the burnt out molasses in black solid form cleared as waste. The Commissioner set aside the order rejecting the refund claim following the Tribunal decision in Sankar Sugar Mills v. Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 753 (T) = 1994 (52) ECR 354 an allowed the appeal filed before him. In the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut challenging the order-in-appeal, it is contended that the Commissioner (Appeal) had erred in passing the impugned order and that the Shankar Sugar Mills decision was disting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the present one relate to molasses damaged by autocombustion. In that case application for remission of duty on molasses lost by autocombustion had been filed and the matter was pending. During the pendency of that application, the applicant removed certain quantity of damaged and burnt molasses on payment of duty under protest. The difference between the quantity stored was shown as shortage. Duty was demanded alleging that appellant had not taken sufficient precautions for proper storage. The Assistant Collector's order confirming the demand was upheld by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal set aside the order holding that what was cleared was not molasses but waste. There is no difference between the present case and the above men....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce with the requirement of the Rule in question. The Superintendent is a subordinate officer of the Assistant Commissioner and is part of the official set up under the Assistant Commissioner, exercising jurisdiction over the respondent's factory as the Range Officer. When the letter of protest is filed before the Assistant Commissioner, the factual details involved are got checked by him through the Superintendent to decide the admissibility of the claim. Respondent could not be faulted for having taken the step they had. That a protest letter under Rule 233B filed before the Superintendent constitutes proper compliance with the requirement of Rule 233B has been the approach taken by the Tribunal in series of decisions e.g. ICEM Engineering....