9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1029X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y prior to that shall be owned my M/s. Bhunna. It was Government of India undertaking and there was stock of 29187 qtls. of molasses on 19-1-2007. On Nov. 2006, as per ER-1 returns filed by M/s. Bhuna in December the balance quantity of Molasses was shown as nil. As M/s. Bhuna had gone into liquidation. There was a transfer of molasses to the appellant in the month of August, 2007, on which, the appellant paid duty. There was a difference of 18535.250 qtls. of molasses as per RG-1 register. The Range Superintendent wrote a letter to the official liquidator of M/s. Bhunna to discharge duty on the said quantity. The official liquidator replied vide their letter dated 18-9-2007 explaining that there was no physical stock of molasses in the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to pay duty. He further submits that the sole ground for demand duty from the appellant is that they have given bond/undertaking at the time of registration. The duty cannot be demanded by way of adjudication on the basis of undertaking given by the appellant. As the bond/undertaking is not enforceable against the appellant as held by this Tribunal in the case of Shetkari S.S.K. Ltd. reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 792 (Tribunal). Therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that in this case duty was demanded from the M/s. Bhuna Co-op. Sugar Mills as well as from the appellant and at the time of registration, the appellant undertook to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was to approach the competent court for enforcement of the same. With the provisions of Rule 49 being in force and that the Tribunal being the creature of the statute, it is not open for the Tribunal to go beyond the scope of the statutory rules and when the rules do not provider for raising a demand for the molasses destroyed and that too with the permission of the department the demand raised and confirmed, cannot be sustained. The order of the authority below is therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed. 7. In that circumstances that I hold that show cause notice was issued to the appellant is pre-mature, therefore, the impugned order not sustainable. 8. With these terms, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
