2001 (4) TMI 301 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to orders demanding differential duty on molasses sold to distilleries during 1995-96 and 1996-97.
- Contention regarding the value of molasses fixed by authorities.
- Claim of differential duty being unsustainable.
- Decision-making process and agreements related to molasses pricing.
- Observations by the Commissioner in Order-in-Appeal No. 1598/CE/CHD.
- Departmental error in fixing the value of molasses at a higher price.
- Dispute resolution and setting aside of impugned orders with consequential relief.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by M/s. Oswal Sugars Ltd. challenging orders demanding differential duty on molasses sold to distilleries during 1995-96 and 1996-97. The appellants argued that the value of molasses fixed by the authorities lacked any material basis, and they had already remitted duty on the actual value realized from the sale of molasses to the government. Therefore, they contended that the claim of differential duty was unsustainable.

During the hearing of stay petitions, it was noted that the facts of the case were similar to previous appeals. It was highlighted that a decision was made during a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister regarding the pricing of molasses, where sugar mill owners were supposed to sell molasses at a specific price to distilleries, with the state government providing a subsidy. However, neither the distilleries nor the government honored these agreements, leading to molasses being sold at a lower price than initially decided.

The decision made at the meeting chaired by the Chief Minister was found to lack statutory force, as the price of molasses was not notified under any existing law. The Commissioner's observation in Order-in-Appeal No. 1598/CE/CHD regarding the price of molasses was criticized for not considering the failure of parties to honor the agreed prices and the absence of evidence supporting the prevailing market rates mentioned.

Ultimately, it was concluded that the Department erred in fixing the value of molasses at a higher price, as the sugar mill owners had paid duty based on the actual price realized from the sale. Therefore, the claim of the Department for differential duty against the appellants was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside entirely, with any consequential relief granted as necessary.