9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in water, thus bringing into existence sugar syrup. Prior to 28-2-1986 no duty was required to be paid by the appellants in terms of Notification 118/75, dated 30-4-1975 inasmuch as they were using the said solution in their various final dutiable products i.e. confectionery items. However, on change to the new Tariff sugar syrup became separately classifiable under Tariff sub-heading 1702.30. This sub-heading, inter alia, speaks of sugar syrup not containing added flavouring or colouring matter carrying rate of duty of 12%. A question has arisen whether this sugar syrup is liable to duty although they have used the duty paid sugar in making the sugar syrup. The appellants did not declare the manufacturing of the said sugar syrup in thei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n remained the same. The department was fully aware of the process of manufacture of their confectionery items. It was the same as it was. Therefore, mere omission to declare the manufacture of so called sugar solution in the classification list cannot be termed as wilful suppression of facts. It is just a bona fide belief and hence it is urged that the demand be set aside and consequently there will be no warrant for imposing any penalty on the appellants. 3.1 Opposing the contentions, learned JDR, Shri T. Arunachalam reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. He submits that sugar syrup is separately mentioned under sub-heading 1702.30. The fact that it is a manufactured product is clear from the fact that appellants were av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the product is unstable and therefore, it cannot be marketed. Simply because they are not marketing it cannot be inferred therefrom that the product is non-marketable. We, therefore, hold that sugar syrup is liable to duty. 4.2 However, on the plea of limitation we are of the view that the appellants have a strong case. The process of manufacture was well known to the department. This process was in existence even before introduction of the new Tariff and it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that it was not in their knowledge. The omission to mention in the classification list may, therefore, be treated as a bona fide belief of the appellants since they were not marketing the said product and as they were using it earlier which was fully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
