Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Oswal Sugars Ltd. vs Cce, Chandigarh on 3 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(75)ECC670, 2001(132)ELT99(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
Justice K. Sreedharan
1. These appeals are at the instance of M/s. Oswal Sugars Ltd. The orders challenged in these appeals were passed demanding differential duty on molasses sold by the appellants to distilleries during the year 98-96 and 96-97. Appellants' contention in both the appeals is that the value of molasses fixed by the authorities below are not based on any material and that duty on the actual value realised on the sale of molasses were duly remitted to the Government. Therefore, it is their case that the claim of differential duty is unsustainable.
2. When the stay petitions moved by the appellants came up for hearing we heard Counsel representing the appellants and the Departmental Representative at length. We are disposing of the appeals without passing any separate order on the stay petitions.
3. The facts of these appeals are similar to various appeals disposed of by us earlier. During the financial year 95-96, Chief Minister of the State convened a conference of sugar mill owners and owners of distilleries. At that meeting it was decided that sugar mill owners will sell molasses at Rs.200 per quintal to the distilleries and State Government will give subsidy of Rs.100 to the mills. Though such a decision was taken in the meeting presided over by Chief Minister, Government did not honour their undertaking to give subsidy to the owners of the mills. Nor did the distilleries complied with the terms of the decision to pay Rs.200 per quintal to the sugar mill owners. In such a situation sugar mill owners sold molasses at lesser price. Price fetched on such sale was far below Rs.200 per quintal, which amount was alone paid by the distiller.
4. The decision taken at the meeting chaired by the Chief Minister cannot have any statutory force. Price of molasses was not notified under any law in force. It is the case of sugar mill owners that neither the distillers nor the Government honoured the decisions taken at the meeting chaired by the Chief Minister.
5. Learned Commissioner in Order-in-Appeal NO. 1598/CE/CHD dated 23.11.2000 observed -
"I have carefully gone through the facts of the case along with submissions of the appellants. I observe that during 1995-96 Punjab Govt. had fixed a price of Rs. 300 per quintal of Molasses after discussion with the representatives of Sugar Mills. The price was on lower side as compared to the prevailing market price of Rs.350/- and Rs.450/-."
Commissioner failed to observe that the price fixed at the meeting chaired by the Chief Minister of Punjab was not honoured by the parties who attended the meeting. Nor did the Government comply with their undertaking to give subsidy of Rs.100 per quintal. Further there is no iota of evidence to show that the prevailing market rate of molasses during the relevant period was ranging from Rs.350/- to Rs.450/-. Observation made by the Commissioner can only be termed as wild imagination. As there is no evidence to show that the sugar mill owners realised anything over and above the price declared by them as value of molasses sold by them, the Department was not justified in claiming differential duty.
6. In view of what has been stated above, we hold that the Department was clearly in error in fixing the value of molasses at a higher price. On the basis of the price realised by the sugar mill owners, they paid duty to the Department. This fact is not in dispute. In such a situation, the claim of differential duty put forth against the appellants is unsustainable.
7. Orders impugned in these appeals are set aside in its entirety with consequential relief if any.