2016 (12) TMI 19 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture - biscuits - excisability of goods - whether the Sugar Syrup manufactured and used captively by appellant, in further manufacture of exempted biscuits is excisable and therefore the appellant is liable to pay excise duty on sugar syrup in terms of Notification No. 67/1995-CE dated 16-03-1995? - Held that - the appellant was manufacturing sugar syrup being an intermediate product, in the course of manufacturing biscuits. On similar set of circumstances, the Tribunal Chennai in the case of Pepsico India Holding Ltd. Vs CCE Chennai 2008 (10) TMI 544 - CESTAT, CHENNAI set aside the demand as time barred. It can be safely concluded that there is no legal or factual basis for alleging suppression of facts with intend to evade payment of duty against the respondents. The Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly held part of the demand to be barred by limitation. On such score, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Department.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of excise duty on sugar syrup used in the manufacture of exempted biscuits, Allegation of suppression of facts to evade payment of duty, Extended period of limitation for raising demand, Interpretation of circulars issued by CBEC regarding excisability of sugar syrup.

Analysis:
1. Demand of excise duty on sugar syrup: The case revolved around the demand of excise duty on sugar syrup used in the manufacture of exempted biscuits. The department contended that the sugar syrup manufactured and used captively by the appellant was excisable, thus making them liable to pay excise duty. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand, which was later partially upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The issue of marketability of sugar syrup was raised in a subsequent appeal to CESTAT.

2. Allegation of suppression of facts: The appellant argued that the respondents suppressed the fact of production of sugar syrup to evade payment of excise duty. The department invoked the extended period of limitation for raising the demand, alleging suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant contended that the issuance of circulars by CBEC clarifying the excisability of sugar syrup did not absolve them from the duty payable on sugar syrup.

3. Extended period of limitation: The department raised the demand for excise duty on sugar syrup for an extended period, beyond the normal period, citing suppression of facts by the appellant. The appellant challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation, arguing that the department became aware of the non-payment of duty only in 2012, well within the statutory period for raising the demand.

4. Interpretation of circulars issued by CBEC: The appellant and the department presented conflicting interpretations of circulars issued by CBEC regarding the excisability of sugar syrup. The appellant argued that the circulars created doubts in the field and trade regarding the dutiability of sugar syrup. The Tribunal observed that the department was aware of the appellant's manufacturing activities and the issue of dutiability of sugar syrup, citing a similar case where the demand was set aside as time-barred due to changes in departmental views.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the department, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to vacate the demand of duty and penalty on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal found no legal or factual basis for alleging suppression of facts by the respondents and agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that part of the demand was time-barred. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering changes in departmental views and the interpretation of circulars in excise duty cases involving intermediate products like sugar syrup.