2004 (3) TMI 294 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Duty demand on sugar syrup, classification under CETA sub-heading 1702.30, limitation period for demand, suppression of production, penalty under Section 11AC.

Duty Demand on Sugar Syrup: The Commissioner confirmed duty demand on sugar syrup manufactured in the intermediate stage for use in fruit pulp drinks, classifying it under CETA sub-heading 1702.30. Duty was imposed at 10% ad valorem under Section 11A(1) proviso, with interest under Section 11AB and penalty u/s 11AC.

Limitation Period for Demand: The appellants argued that the demand was time-barred as the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period. They contended that changing views by the department on excisability/marketability of sugar syrup, as evidenced by various circulars, indicated no intent to evade duty. The Tribunal agreed, holding the demand barred by limitation and setting aside the impugned order.

Suppression of Production: The appellants claimed they did not suppress production with intent to evade duty, citing departmental clarifications on excisability of sugar syrup. The Trade Notice of 1989 and subsequent circulars showed evolving views on marketability, leading to a conclusion that the demand was not justified. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, considering the changing interpretations by the department.

Penalty under Section 11AC: In light of the finding that the demand was time-barred and the appellants did not suppress production intentionally, the penalty equal to duty imposed u/s 11AC was set aside as well. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the evolving positions of the department on the excisability of sugar syrup.