ORDER
K. Sreedharan, Justice
1. Alongwith this appeal the appellant moved an application for stay of operation of the orders impugned and the stay petition came up for orders. We heard the Counsel representing the appellant and Ld. DR. On hearing their arguments in full and on perusing the records, we feel that the appeal itself can be disposed of without passing a seperate order on the stay petition.
2. The appellant is a sugar factory. They produced molasses and cleared it to distilleries. During the year 1995-96, one Conference was convened by Chief Minister of Punjab wherein a decision was taken to sell molasses to distilleries at Rs.300/- per qntl. That decision was not honoured by Govt. in the sense that the amount of subsidy at the rate of Rs.100 per qntl. was not given to sugar factory. Actually the sugar factory was selling the molasses at Rs.200 per quintal during 1995-96. Thinking that they will get Rs.100 per qntl. by way of subsidies from Govt, they showed the value of molasses at Rs.370/- per qntl. and duty under the Central Excise Act paid accordingly. The Departmental authorities claimed differential duty on the ground that the sugar mills must be deemed to have sold molasses at Rs.300 per qntl. Against this action, mill owners took up the stand that they paid duty on a value higher than that which was realised on sale and so no differential duty is payable by them. This contention was rejected. Hence the order to pay differential duty and penalty.
3. In the case on hand the Departmental Authorities have not substantiated their contention that sugar mills did realise Rs.300 per qntl. of molasses sold to distilleries. Accordingly to the sugar mills, they paid excise duty on a greater value than the actual value realised by them. The Department did not succeed in proving their contention that molasses was sold at Rs.300/- per qntl. Consequently, their claim for differential duty is untenable. Viewed in this light, we set aside the claim for differential duty made by adjudicating authority and the appellant authority, on the appellant in relation to molasses cleared during 1995-96. The orders in this regard are set aside in its entirity.
4. Ld. DR brought to our notice final order No.144-145/2001-A dt.3.4.2001 wherein theorders impugned in this appeal are also set aside. So accordingly to the Ld. DR, there was no necessity to have a fresh decision in the appeal on hand. According to him since the order itself has been set aside as per thefinal order referred to above, this appeal is infructuous. This argument of Ld. DR is attractive. The adjudication proceedings were initiated by issuing three SCNs relating to clearance of molasses during three different periods. All the three SCNs were disposed of by a common order of adjudication and the parties filed three appeals against those orders. So technically the Ld. DR is correct in saying that the impugned order had been set aside. To make the records clear, all orders arising out of the three SCNs have to be dealt with. In this view of the matter, we do not find any impropriety in passing a seperate order on the present appeal as well. Appeal is allowed. Orders impugned are set aide with consequential relief, if any.
Dictated in the open Court.