2008 (6) TMI 117 - AT - Central Excise

During the course of manufacturing of sugar and molasses certain quantity of brown sugar/rori sugar/scrapping was left in the machinery at the end of each crushing season. The brown sugar so left is not a marketable product - Department submissions that sugar includes any form of sugar and therefore, the brown sugar should be held to be excisable, may not be applicable to the present facts as the product has not reached the marketable stage assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding storage and reprocessing losses in the manufacture of VP sugar and molasses.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of VP sugar and molasses, claimed certain storage and reprocessing losses. The original authority demanded duty, interest, and penalty, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant argued that the brown sugar left in the machinery at the end of each crushing season is not marketable and requires further processing to become VP sugar. The advocate cited precedents to support the argument that the reprocessed sugar should be treated as production of the year in which reprocessing was completed. The appellant emphasized the high molasses content in the left-over brown sugar and the hygroscopic nature of sugar leading to weight loss. The Department reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals)'s findings.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the sugar left over at the end of the crushing season undergoes substantial processing before being marketed. The Tribunal observed that the tolerance limit prescribed for storage losses by the Board applies only to standard sugar and cannot be applied in this case. It was acknowledged that the left-over brown sugar is not in a marketable condition and contains a high molasses content. The Tribunal held that the brown sugar, in its current state, cannot be considered excisable until it reaches the marketable stage. Citing a precedent from the appellant's own case, the Tribunal concluded that the brown sugar obtained in such circumstances cannot be classified as sugar. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted to the appellant.