IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.114 of 2005 COMMISSIONER ,CENTRAL EXCISE, GOVT. OF INDIA,PATNA, C.R. BUILDING, BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, P.O.- G.P.O., PATNA, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTRICT- PATNA …………….APPELLANT Versus M/S NEW INDIA SUGAR MILLS LTD. SAMASTIPUR, P.O+P.S.- HASANPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. …….. RESPONDENT ************ For the Appellant :- Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Standing Counsel Mrs. Archana Sinha, Jr. Standing Counsel. ************************ 9 14/09/2009 Reg; I. A. No. 5633 of 2009 For the reasons stated in the condonation application, I. A. No. 5633 of 2009 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred under the provisions of section 35G of the Central Excises and Customs Act 1944, challenging the order dated 21.4.2004, passed by the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Calcutta, in Appeal No. EDM-327 of 2003 (Commissioner of Central Excise versus M/s. New India Sugar Mills Ltd.), whereby the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been rejected and the order of the learned Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, has been up-held. It appears that the respondent is engaged in the 2 manufacture and sale of Sugar. Molasses is one of the items produced by the respondent company in course of manufacturing process. It appears that the respondents had filed an application for remission, seeking permission for destruction of certain quantity of molasses which had become unfit for human consumption. Permission for destruction was granted, which was followed by an order for remission of the duties of excise thereupon. It was challenged before the Tribunal and the matter went back and forth until the impugned order was passed. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the final order dated 5.4.1989, has allegedly been misused by the respondent company and has, under the guise of the order, molasses of good quality has been shown in the records as having been rendered unfit for human consumption, has been sold, the duties of excise recovered from the purchaser, and not disclosed to the Department. It appears that as per the order dated 13.5.2002, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna, had finally allowed the respondent’s claim which led to the aforesaid appeal before the Tribunal which has been rejected by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant raises a grievance before us that the Tribunal did not consider the issues of facts and law and disposed of the appeal by a cryptic order without assigning reasons. She submits that it gives rise to a substantial 3 question of law which may be framed and referred to the Tribunal to be returned to this court for adjudication. The grievance on the face of it appears to be justified. The Tribunal has disposed of the matter in an unsatisfactory manner and has recorded only its conclusion to reject the appeal. However, we cannot over look certain other aspects of the matter. The appellant has not placed before us the relevant orders which have earlier been passed by the authorities as well as by the Tribunal to satisfy us that a substantial question of law does arise in the appeal. We are not inclined to formulate a question of law on the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The relevant orders have not been placed before us. Secondly, it is a fairly old matter. The periods involved are 1978- 79 to 86-87, and the first order of the learned Collector of Customs is of 5.4.1989. In that view of the matter, we do not wish to proceed further in the matter. The appeal is dismissed. (S. K. Katriar, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin