2017 (2) TMI 244 - AT - Central Excise

Inter-mediate product - captive consumption - demand on the ground that the sugar syrup though captively used in the manufacture of exempted goods, the same is not marketable - Held that - if the sugar concentrate by weight is less than 65% then it will not have shelf life and such case sugar syrup will not be a marketable goods. However, as per the undisputed fact of the present case, the sugar syrup contained more than 65% sugar concentrate and it also contained the preservative, i.e. citric acid. Therefore, the sugar syrup in the present case has indeed shelf life therefore, it is marketable - sugar syrup is dutiable - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Liability of excise duty on sugar syrup used captively in the manufacture of exempted goods

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing fruit juice and sugar syrup, used the sugar syrup captively in the production of fruit juice, which was exempt from excise duty. The dispute arose when the excise authority demanded duty on the captively cleared sugar syrup. The appellant contended that the sugar syrup was not marketable due to its limited shelf life and hence not liable for duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand but set aside the penalty.

The Revenue argued that the sugar syrup, with over 65% sugar concentrate and citric acid added as a preservative, was marketable based on various judgments and a Board Circular. The Revenue relied on precedents like Universal Drinks, Ambaji Foods, Pepsico India Holdings, Mysore Sugar Company, Spectra Bottling Co., Himalyan Vegi Fruits, and Hyderabad Bottling Co. to support their stance.

The Tribunal analyzed the issue and noted that if the sugar concentrate in the syrup is less than 65%, it lacks shelf life and is not marketable. However, in the present case, the sugar syrup contained over 65% sugar concentrate and citric acid as a preservative, ensuring shelf life. Relying on the precedents and the factual findings, the Tribunal concluded that the sugar syrup was indeed marketable and hence dutiable. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the sugar syrup, meeting the criteria of over 65% sugar concentrate and containing a preservative, was marketable and thus liable for excise duty, despite being used captively in the manufacture of exempted goods.