TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 1988-89 season aggregating to 17,600.70 qtls. were transferred from pucca pit to kutcha pit on execution of a bond following the Board Circular No. 261/15CC/4/82-CX.B dated 22-10-1982 which was withdrawn by Circular No. 35/88-CX.8 dated 1-8-1988. The appellant made application to the Central Excise authority on 17-4-1991 requesting them to permit for destruction of molasses became unfit for marketing while lying in the approved covered pucca pit. Sample of the molasses in question was taken on 20-4-1991 for testing in the laboratory which resulted with the observation that the sample in the form of brown covered syrup liquid and there was no presence of sugar. Such fact was also within the knowledge of Authority. At the time of submittin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-1993 the appellant informed the Central Excise Authorities for remission of the duty as aforesaid and also to refund the amount paid under protest. Series of exchange of letters were made by both the parties on the issue. On 25-6-1996, the authority informed that decision of the Competent Authority having been already communicated to them vide letter No.1243 dated 15-3-1993, the appellant may seek an appeal against that decision. In terms of letter dated 15-3-1993 inviting reference to the letters dated 8-7-1991, 31-10-1991 and 17-9-1992 informed that the goods stored in kutcha pit on payment of Central Excise duty were cleared from place of storage for which the Central Excise Department was no more concerned with the matter and the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hority obtaining a certificate from the Superintendent showing the destruction. The molasses when that was lying in pucca pit becoming useless and not fit for marketability, remission was called for since duty was paid under protest. Carrying the dispute for proper redressal, the appellant had never admitted to pay the duty voluntarily when the goods were not at all shifted to kutcha pit for marketability. 2.2The Circular No. 35 dated 1-8-1988 relied by Revenue was not at all against the appellant and that circular cannot be used to deny remission of duty. Further, that circular having withdrawn the Circular No. 261/22/10/82 and the appellant having stored the molasses in pucca pit can not be debarred for remission of duty. In support of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n kutcha pit subject to execution of bond and in the event of loss or damage whether for natural cause or otherwise, the sugar factories were required to pay duty on such molasses without claiming remission of duty under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, relying on decision of Bombay Bench of the Tribunal passed vide Order No. 1116-1132/86-WRB, dated 14-10-1986 [(1987) (29) E.L.T. 22 (Tribunal)] holding that molasses stored in kutcha pit deteriorating in quality due to open storage becoming unfit for marketing should be permitted for destruction under Rule 49 and duty thereon should be remitted, Board issued Circular No. 35/88 dated 1-8-1988 withdrawing the 1982 circular and also conveyed its decision that sugar factories shou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. case (supra). On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of like nature of the appellant, the Tribunal came to the conclusion in favour of the Appellant. The impugned order does not reflect whether any bond was obtained from the appellant following 1982 circular till withdrawal thereof by 1988 circular. The case of the present appellant is very clear that it had stored molasses in pucca pit till 17-4-1991 when the intimation was given to the Department for according permission for destruction of the same in view of deterioration of quality thereof for long storage from the season 1988- 89 and 1989-90. It may be appreciated that till 198....