Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 475 - AT - Central ExciseLevy of Excise Duty - sugar syrup - captive consumption/intermediate goods - marketable goods or not - It appeared to the department that the sugar being marketable and having shelf-life due to adding of citric acid is excisable and that appellant is liable to pay duty on such intermediate products - HELD THAT - The appellant has argued that it is not a marketable product. The department has not furnished any evidence to show that sugar syrup manufactured by appellant is a marketable product. The issue has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of M/S RISHI BAKERS PVT. LTD., SHRI PRAKASH CHAND TALREJA, DIRECTOR, M/S RAMAKRISHNA BAKERS PVT. LTD., SHRI RAJIV TALREJA, DIRECTOR, M/S SWATI BISCUIT MANUFACTURING CO., SHRI OM PRAKASH SHYAMDASANI, PARTNER VERSUS CCE ST, KANPUR 2015 (4) TMI 893 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that Neither there is any evidence to prove that the goods, in question, are classifiable under 17029090 nor there is any evidence to prove that the goods, in question, in form in which they come into existence in the appellant s factories, are marketable. The department has not put forward any evidence to establish that the Sugar Syrup is the marketable product. The demand therefore cannot sustain and requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
The issue involves whether the Sugar Syrup prepared inside the factory is subject to levy of excise duty as an intermediate product. Summary: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Biscuits on a job work basis, also produces Sugar Syrup as an intermediate product consumed in the manufacture of Biscuits. The Department contended that the Sugar Syrup, being marketable and having a shelf-life due to the addition of citric acid, is excisable. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant argued that the Sugar Syrup was not marketable and thus not liable for excise duty, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and evidence presented. It was noted that the Department had not provided evidence to show that the Sugar Syrup was a marketable product. Previous decisions were referenced to establish the non-exigibility of excise duty on non-marketable products. The classification of the product under sub-heading 1702 90 90 was also challenged due to lack of evidence regarding the fructose content required for such classification. Referring to past judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of establishing marketability based on the product's condition when it emerges. The Tribunal found that the Department had not proven the marketability of the Sugar Syrup. Citing relevant precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for excise duty could not be sustained and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for excise duty on the Sugar Syrup due to lack of evidence establishing its marketability. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
|