2008 (7) TMI 639 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of classification of the product as sugar syrup under Central Excise Tariff 1702.30 and consideration of marketability for duty imposition.

Summary:
1. The appeals arose from Orders confirming demands for clearing sugar syrup without duty payment. The appellants contended they were not manufacturing sugar syrup but sugar solution from sugar cane. However, authorities found the item marketable and classifiable under Central Excise Tariff 1702.30 based on manufacturing process evidence.

2. The Original Authority referred to HSN Explanatory notes and Board's Circular to support the classification of the item as sugar syrup. The Commissioner (A) upheld the findings based on the process of sugar cane crushing and manufacturing process details provided by the appellants.

3. The appellants argued that the item was sugar cane juice, not sugar syrup, and thus not marketable. They disputed the findings and demanded the demands be set aside.

4. The appellants' representatives argued that the item did not meet the criteria of sugar syrup as it did not contain the required sugar concentration. They referred to Board Circulars and Chief Chemist's opinion to support their stance.

5. The SDR highlighted previous rulings and Circulars to support the classification of sugar solution as sugar syrup and liable for duty. The Revenue challenged the findings of the Commissioner (A) based on the presence of Citric Acid in the sugar solution.

6. The Counsel relied on previous rulings to argue against the classification of the item as sugar syrup due to sugar concentration and marketability issues. They cited cases where similar matters were remanded for further verification.

7. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and noted the need for verification of sugar concentration in the solution to determine its classification as sugar syrup. Due to uncertainties in the matter, the case was remanded to the Original Authority for de novo consideration, including the assessment of sugar syrup percentage and time-bar issues.

Separate Judgment: The Revenue's appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (A)'s order based on the presence of Citric Acid in the sugar solution, as confirmed by the Chemical Examiner's Report. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue based on the shelf life aspect and remanded the case for further consideration.