JUDGMENT
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. Appeals taken up for disposal with consent, after waiving deposit.
2. The appellant is a sugar mill and cleared the molasses that it obtained as a bye-product in the manufacture of sugar on payment of duty. The notices issued to it alleged short levy on the ground that it has sold the molasses at prices which were lower than the cost of its manufacture. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the proposals in the notices. The manufacture appealed his order and asked the Commissioner for waiver of deposit of the duty demanded and penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner(Appeals) asked for deposit of entire duty. This not having been done, he dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal.
3. On the face of it basis for the demand, that the cost of manufacture of the molasses was higher than the sale price, is difficult to sustain. The cost of manufacture is stated to have been certified by a chemist of another sugar mill and the basis for the certificate is not before us. The contention of the counsel for the appellant that it obtained molasses as a by-product in the manufacture of sugar, that it is subject to deterioration during storage, and therefore it sold it at the best possible price appears to us prima facie sound. It is contended that the goods were sold to the higher bidders in a public tender.
4. On the point we feel that the appellant was entitled to waiver of deposit of duty. The orders of the Commissioner dismissing the appeals in default is therefore not sustainable. We allow the appel as and set aside his order. He shall dispose of the appeals in accordance with law, without insisting on any deposit.