9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. In the impugned order Ld. Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 37,46,827/-. Being aggrieved by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar. In the process of manufacture of sugar molasses is generated as a by-product. Molasses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sses are under the control of State Excise authorities in so far as their sale is concerned, they also approached the State Excise Commissioner and Controller of Molasses for allotting the molasses to distilleries. He submitted that when no positive response was available from the State Commissioner/Controller of Molasses, the appellants filed a Writ in Allahabad High Court. He submits that Allaha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the molasses on payment of duty. He submits that since there was no negligence and since every effort to ensure that the molasses is sold out, was taken by the appellant, therefore, the demand of duty was not warranted. Ld. Counsel submitted that when the molasses became unfit for human consumption, they made a request to the Commissioner concerned for remission of duty. He submits that instea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts showing negligence on the part of the appellant. He submits that the demand has rightly been confirmed. He reiterates the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. On careful consideration of the submissions made, we note that molasses is subject to dual control. Control is simultaneously exercised both by Central Excise Authorities as well as State Excise Cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts held similarly. The cases cited and relied upon by the appellant decided by this Tribunal are the case of Saraya Sugar Mills v. CCE reported in 1997 (93) E.L.T. 264 and Shankar Sugar Mills v. CCE reported in 1994 (71) E.L.T. 753 (Tribunal) = 1994 (52) ECR 354. 6. Having regard to the above discussions and the case law on the subject cited above we hold the duty demand is not sustainable. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
