B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, CJ. ( 1 ) COMMON questions arise in these writ petitions which may be disposed of altogether. The petitioners are Sugar Factories. Molasses is a by-product of sugar manufacturing. It is a dutiable goods under the Central Excise Act. Molasses is also a controlled commodity. U. P. Sheera niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964, and Rules made thereunder provides for its distribution, allotment and price. Though the central excise duty is payable on the manufacture, it is well known that for the sake of convenience it is collected at the stage of removal of goods from the bonded warehouse or approved place of storage, as the case may be. According to the licence granted to the petitioner-sugar Mills they have to provide steel tanks or construct Pucca tanks for storing molasses. This molasses has to be supplied to various allottees in accordance with allotment orders issued by the Excise Commissioner and at the rate specified. ( 2 ) WE may take the facts in Civil Misc. Writ No. 251 of 1990 as representative of the facts in all the writ petitions herein. Of course, wherever necessary we shall indicate facts of an individual writ petition. The petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 251 of 1990 is L. H. Sugar Factory, Pilibhit. It is asking for an appropriate order or direction quashing the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bareilly under Section 11-A of the Central Excise act. It is also asking for quashing the order dated 29-1-1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, central Excise, Bareilly. Under the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he should not be made liable to pay duty amounting to Rs. 13,62,251. 20 on the quantity stored by him in Kachcha pits as on 26-4-1989. It was alleged that the said storage is in contravention of Rules 9 (1) and 49 (1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under the order dated 29-1-1990 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bareilly has confirmed the said demand in a sum of Rs. 13,62,251. 20. The petitioner has come forward with the following averments : ( 3 ) DURING the year 1987-88 the petitioner Sugar Factory produced 2,17,754. 57 quintals of molasses. Till 1988 the Controller of Molasses had allotted 1,62,450 quintals to certain distilleries (allottees ). They did not, however, lift the quantity in time. 13,62,251. 20. The petitioner has come forward with the following averments : ( 3 ) DURING the year 1987-88 the petitioner Sugar Factory produced 2,17,754. 57 quintals of molasses. Till 1988 the Controller of Molasses had allotted 1,62,450 quintals to certain distilleries (allottees ). They did not, however, lift the quantity in time. The petitioner sent several telegrams to the Excise Commissioner (Controller of Molasses) inviting his attention to the accumulation of stock of molasses and finding no response, filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 1193 of 1988 in this court to permit the petitioner to sell the said molasses in open market. The writ petition was disposed of on 20-7-1988 directing the petitioner to sell the molasses stored in open tank within a period of two months under the Supervision of and control of the departmental officer posted at the factory. It was directed that any stock remaining unsold at the end of two months shall be dealt with and released/sold by the petitioner only in accordance with the directions of the Excise Commissioner. However, there were heavy rains during June to August, 1988, the molasses stored in open tanks got deteriorated. The distilleries were not lifting the molasses on account of deterioration. The petitioner could sell only about 2500 quintals in pursuance of the orders of this Court. The remaining stock continued to lie in open pits. On 1-10-1988 the petitioher requested the Excise Commissioner to permit him to sell the said stock in open market. At that stage, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Pilibhit sent a letter dated 3-4-1988 informing that in view of the Circular dated 1-8-1988 issued by the Central Board of excise and Customs, the non-duty paid molasses cannot be stored in Kachcha pits and that it can be stored in Kachcha pits only on payment of duty under Rules 173-H. He was called upon to pay the appropriate duty. Thereafter a showcause notice was issued under Section 11-A on 28-4-1989. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show-cause notice but the Assistant collector passed the impugned order on 29-1-1990 confirming the demand. ( 4 ) THE petitioner referred to the provisions of U. P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 and the circular dated 25-3-1987 issued by the Excise Commissioner/controller of Molasses permitting storage in Kachcha pits subject to certain conditions. The petitioner submitted explanation to the show-cause notice but the Assistant collector passed the impugned order on 29-1-1990 confirming the demand. ( 4 ) THE petitioner referred to the provisions of U. P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, 1964 and the circular dated 25-3-1987 issued by the Excise Commissioner/controller of Molasses permitting storage in Kachcha pits subject to certain conditions. He then submitted tha,t according to the central Excise Act and Rules, a duty is payable only when the goods are removed for sale and since no such removal has taken place, no duty is payable. It is further submitted that the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 and the final order dated 29-1-1990 are both illegal and invalid for the above reasons and also because the respondents are stopped from revoking the permission granted to them earlier to store the molasses in open Kachcha pits. It is submitted that the circular dated 1-8-1988 withdrawing the permission is not only unenforceable in law but also that it has no application to the molasses already stored in Kachcha pits. ( 5 ) SRI S. P. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions: (1) That excise duty is payable only on removal of goods; removal means removal for sale or disposal. No such removal has taken place in the present case; no duty can, therefore, be levied. (2) That having permitted the petitioner to store the molasses in open Kachcha pits, because the circumstances warranted it, the respondents are estopped from withdrawing the said permission. Indeed, the withdrawal of permission contained in circular dated 1-8-1988 is not applicable to molasses already stored. It is only prospective in operation. (3) That the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 issued under Section 11-A of the Central Excise act is barred by time. The duty became payable on 1-8-1988 and the notice under Section 11-A is beyond six months therefrom. For this reason the final order passed is equally bad in law. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit sworn to by V. Sesha Giri Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs and central Excise is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner had stored molasses in Kachcha pits in accordance with the terms of circular dated 22-10-1982 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. ( 6 ) A counter-affidavit sworn to by V. Sesha Giri Rao, Assistant Collector of Customs and central Excise is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner had stored molasses in Kachcha pits in accordance with the terms of circular dated 22-10-1982 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. By a subsequent circular dated 1-8-1988 (?) and another letter dated 24-11-1988 the permission granted under the previous circular has been withdrawn. After the said withdrawal the molasses can be stored in Kachcha pits only on payment of duty. ( 7 ) THE circular issued by the Excise Commissioner/controller of molasses (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is valid only for the specific season, namely, 1986-87. The molasses concerned herein is of a different season, namely, 1987-88. The permission granted by the Excise commissioner has no relevance or effect upon the liability to pay the Central Excise duty, which is governed by the provisions of Central Excise Act and Rules made thereunder. It is submitted that the petitioner did not take diligent steps for disposing of the said stock. As a matter of fact the petitioner had executed B-2 bond on 13-4-1983 as required by the Central Board of Excise and Customs Circular dated 22-10-1982. The action taken by the department is in accordance with law and the Circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The permission granted to store molasses in Kachcha pits in accordance with Circular dated 22-10-1982 was withdrawn on 24-11-1988. The petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of appeal against the order dated 29-1-1990. The writ petition, therefore, is not maintainable in law. The learned standing Counsel for the Central Government opposed the writ petition on the said grounds. ( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding further we may state a few facts relevant to other petitions. In writ Petition no. 1969 of 1988, no order has been passed under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act. The learned standing Counsel for the Central Government opposed the writ petition on the said grounds. ( 8 ) BEFORE proceeding further we may state a few facts relevant to other petitions. In writ Petition no. 1969 of 1988, no order has been passed under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act. The provocation for the writ petition is the letter dated 24-10-1988 sent by the Assistant Collector, central Excise, Varanasi to the petitioner advising him that the molasses will not be allowed to be stored in Kachcha pits in accordance with the instructions issued by the Collector, Central excise and that if he wants to store the same in Kachcha pits he has to pay the central excise duty in default of which appropriate action will be taken under Rules. In Writ Petition No. 490 of 1989 also there is no order under Section 11-A. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the orders dated 9-2-1989 and 14-2-1989. Under both the notices the petitioner was intimated that storage of molasses in Kachcha pits is no longer permissible and, therefore, the petitioner was to pay appropriate duty, in default whereof penal action will be taken against him. In writ petition no. 621 of 1989 also there is no order under Section 11-A. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 16-3-1989. It is a letter sent by the Superintendent, Central Excise and customs, Nainital to the petitioner intimating him that the permission for storage of molasses in kachcha pits has been withdrawn by the instructions of the Collector of Central Excise on 23-12-1988 and, therefore, he must pay the appropriate duty and then alone he can continue to store molasses in Kachcha pits. On the petitioners failure, he was intimated, penal action will be taken against him. In Writ Petition No. 89 of 1990, however, an order has been passed by the assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bareilly under Section 11-A of the Act confirming a demand in a sum of more than rupees twelve lacs on account of storage of molasses in Kachcha pits. The proceeding dated 22-12-1989 is not an order but only a letter calling upon the petitionerto deposit the duty payable by him. This proceeding also shows that the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the order dated 16-8-1989. The proceeding dated 22-12-1989 is not an order but only a letter calling upon the petitionerto deposit the duty payable by him. This proceeding also shows that the petitioner has also filed an appeal against the order dated 16-8-1989. In Writ Petition No. 1194 of 1989 the prayer is to quash the order dated 30-6-1989. It is an order under Section 11-A confirming a demand of more than rupees eleven lacs from the petitioner on the ground of storage of molasses in Kachcha pits. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners Sarvasri S. P. Gupta, U. S. Awasthi and s. R. Misra and the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, we are of the opinion, that the proper course for the petitioners to adopt was to file appeals against the orders impugned herein as has indeed been done by the petitioner in W. P. 89/90. In Writ Petition Nos. 251 of 1990, 89 of 1990 and 1194 of 1989 orders under Section 11-A of the Act have been passed. They are appealable orders. There is no reason why the petitioners should not pursue the remedy provided by the statute, more particularly for the following reasons: ( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the show-cause notice and explanation in Writ Petition No. 251 of 1990, it is evident that several questions of fact are arising which require a detailed investigation which is not possible in these writ petitions. The respondents have stated that the petitioners had stored molasses in Kachcha pits after executing B-2 bonds. From a perusal of the explanation filed by the petitioner it appears that he admits this fact. Indeed, he based his first submission on the execution of the bond. His case is that since he had stored the molasses in Kachcha pits after executing B-2 bond, no contravention of Rules 9 (1) and 49 (1) was done and no duty can be demanded from them. A copy of B-2 bond has not been placed before us by any of the parties. A copy of the circular of 1982 has also not been placed before us by any of the parties. We, therefore, do not know the terms of the said bond and cannot, therefore, pronounce upon the correctness of the said plea. A copy of B-2 bond has not been placed before us by any of the parties. A copy of the circular of 1982 has also not been placed before us by any of the parties. We, therefore, do not know the terms of the said bond and cannot, therefore, pronounce upon the correctness of the said plea. The second contention of the petitioner was that the molasses is a controlled commodity and they could not clear it without the order of the Controller of Molasses. It was also submitted that the allottees did not lift the quantity in spite of the allotment order. This is a matter whose relevance and correctness has to be examined by the appropriate authority under the Act. It further appears that of the total quantity of molasses mentioned in the show-cause notice a portion of it was disposed of by the date of filing of the explanation i. e. 12-12-1989. Whether any further quantities have been cleared off since the filing of the explanation is also a matter for verification. In the writ petition a plea of promissory estoppel is also raised. The said plea has to be examined with reference to B-2 bond executed by the petitioners and as stated above the said bond has not been placed before us by any of the petitioners. ( 11 ) SO far as the plea of limitation is concerned, it does not appear to have been raised in Writ petition No. 251 of 1990. The said contention does not appear to have been urged before the assistant Collector, Central Excise in response to the show-cause notice. It is also not raised specifically in the writ petition. The respondents, therefore, had no opportunity to meet the said plea of limitation. Even otherwise we are not able to say that the said plea is acceptable straightaway. It is true that the circular was withdrawn with effect from 1-8-1988 (or 1-9-1988 as the case may be, which fact is not very clear) but it also appears from the counter-affidavit that a letter was sent to the petitioner in pursuance of the said Circular only in November, 1988. It is true that the circular was withdrawn with effect from 1-8-1988 (or 1-9-1988 as the case may be, which fact is not very clear) but it also appears from the counter-affidavit that a letter was sent to the petitioner in pursuance of the said Circular only in November, 1988. It further appears from the show-cause notice that the duty is sought to be demanded not as on 1-8-1988 or 24-11-1988 but as on the date of show-cause notice (i. e. on a day 2-3 date earlier to the date of show-cause notice ). The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is that in such a case the plea of limitation is misplaced. ( 12 ) EVEN in other writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 1969 of 1988,490 of 1989 and 621 of 1989 the impugned notices of demand are appealable though they are not orders under Section 11-A of the Act. Since a demand of duty is made against the petitioners they can file an appeal against the same under Section 35 of the Act. ( 13 ) SHRI S. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioners raised another submission with respect to the effect of the Circular dated 1-8-1988. He raised a doubt whether the permission granted by 1982 Circular and withdrawn by the Circular dated 1-8-1988 is effective from the date of latter circular or is retrospective from the date of storage of molasses in Kachcha pits. This question can also be gone into by the appellate authority, if raised before it on the language of B-2 bond and the relevant provisions of law. ( 14 ) FOR the above reasons, the Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( 15 ) IT is, however, made clear that if the petitioners except the petitioner in W. P. 89/90, who has already filed the appeal file appeal before the appropriate authority within one month from today, the same shall be entertained by the appellate authority without raising objection on the ground of limitation. It shall be entertained according to law without raising an objection on the ground of limitation. The interim orders granted in these writ petitions shall be effective for a period of two months from today. .