9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 645X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name "cococola" is only a house mark of the company. It cannot be said that the treated water is marketed under the brand name of cococola in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. CCE cited (2007 (3) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). The processes undertaken for treatment of water did not result in the emergence of new product. Therefore, we are constrained to follow our own earlier decision affirmed by the apex court. Accordingly, the demands of duty and the connected penalties are set aside and these appeals are allowed. - E/973/2006 & E/984 to 988/2006 - FINAL ORDER NOS.397-402/2012 - Dated:- 19-6-2012 - P.G. Chacko And M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Appellants Rep by: Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. Therefore, the question now to be considered is whether it was marketable for the purpose of levy of duty of excise. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that an identical issue for a later period was considered by this Bench in a case of the same assessee (Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd.) and it was held that marketability of the treated water' was not established by the Revenue vide CCE, Hyderabad vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd.: 2010 (250) E.L.T. 85 (Tri.-Bang.). Para 9 of the cited order of this Bench is reproduced below: 9. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The issue involved is whether the treated water cleared by the respondents to the vending machine is liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he absence of market enquiry and proof of sale of the treated water. The process of purification/filtration merely improved the quality of water. There is no evidence to show that the treated water had been supplied to any consumer. They were only sent to the vending outlets for producing the cococola. The fact that the canisters bore the name "Cococola" is not material. It is the brand name of a specified aerated water drink manufactured by the respondents. It was stated that only with a view to identify the canisters, the said name was embossed. In any case, the treated water is not sold by the brand name of "cococola". In certain cases, the treated waters are supplied in stainless steel tanks. Surely it cannot be said that the treated wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned judgement and order. The civil appeals are dismissed. 3. The learned Superintendent (AR) has made a feeble attempt to distinguish the facts of the present case from those of the cited case. His submission is that, in the cited case of the assessee, there was no evidence of marketability of the commodity unlike in the present case. However, in reply to queries from the Bench, no evidence of such marketability has been disclosed on behalf of the respondent in this case. In other words, the department's case in this batch of appeals is no better than what was noted by this Bench in the earlier case of the main assessee. Therefore, we are constrained to follow our own earlier decision affirmed by the apex court. Accordingly, the dem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
