9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (2) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 57,75,839/- on Big Crystal Sugar (Diamond Sugar), Khadi Sugar and Bura Sugar, holding that they are products manufactured out of Cane Sugar, classifiable under CET sub-heading 1701.39 attracting central excise duty at the appropriate rate during the period April 1998 to June 2003, together with interest, and imposing penalty of equal amount upon the assessee and penalties of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on its partners. Extended period of limitation has been applied against the assessee. The benefit of exemption in terms of SSI Notifications 8/1998, 8/1999, 8/2000 and 8/2001 has been extended and duty liability worked out on clearances in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed thereunder. 2.We have heard both sides. 3.The issues for determina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classifiable under CET sub-heading 1701.39. Following the ratio of the above orders, we hold that the goods in question are excisable and fall for classification under CET sub-heading 1701.39 (the assessees do not contest the classification under this heading and only dispute the excisability). Issue No. 1 is therefore answered in the affirmative. 5.Finding on issue No. 2 The Commissioner has held that cenvat credit is not admissible to the assessees on the ground that they failed to produce any evidence of the duty paid nature of the inputs (sugar) and use thereof in their final products. However, we note that invoices evidencing payment of duty on inputs were filed before the adjudicating authority and therefore they should have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hem on sugar does not amount to manufacture in view of decisions in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. CCE - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 1009 and CCE v. Telco Ltd. - 2006 (204) E.L.T. 83 to the effect that mere change in physical form does not amount to manufacture, and due to such bona fide belief they did not apply for central excise registration and did not declare their process to excise authorities, is not tenable for the reason that the judgments cited supra relate to different processes and different products and therefore cannot be said to form the basis of the assessees' bona fide belief. Since the appellants did not disclose their manufacturing activity, they are guilty of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty and hence the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
