9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (12) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; that sugar is one of the inputs for the manufacture of these items; that since the sugar received by them contains certain impurities, it is added after dissolving the same in water so that the impurities/foreign particles can be removed; that the sugar solution so prepared by them is only for the purpose of removal of impurities and for convenient addition of sugar; that the show cause notice was issued to them for demanding duty on the ground that the sugar in liquid form was sugar syrup; that the Deputy Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 68/98, dated 27-9-98 vacated the proceedings on the ground that sugar solution prepared by them cannot be compared with the sugar syrup manufactured by M/s. Dhanpur Inverters Ltd. as no enzymes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a shelf life and it is marketable. The learned Advocate mentioned that the said clarification was given as the Deputy Chief Chemist had opined that "sugar syrup is prepared by dissolving sugar in water at a temperature of 80 Degree C with the addition of citric acid, activated carbon and decamol. Activated carbon is used to remove odours and colours, decamol functions as a filter aid and citric acid is mainly a preservative". He also mentioned that in Circular No. 226/60/96, dated 3-7-96, Board further clarified on the basis of opinion of Chief Chemist that sugar syrup may have shelf life without addition of any preservative. The learned Advocate contended that the said circular has been wrongly interpreted as it has been clarified by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly because it is not marketed by the Appellants, it cannot be inferred therefrom that the product is non-marketable. In reply the learned advocate mentioned that the said decision has been distinguished by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Nestle (India) Ltd. - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 688 (T) by observing that "the Appellants in that case only submitted that the product was not marketed by them, and did not put forth any evidence that the sugar syrup was unstable and, therefore non-marketable, while in the present case, it has been the consistent claim of the respondents that the product is unstable and retrogration takes place at room temperature, hence rendering the product unstable for any use and the claim has not been controvert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured' has further been explained by this Court to mean that the goods so produced must satisfy the test of marketability." It has been also held by the Supreme Court that even in respect of specified goods in the schedule that it was not marketable or capable of being market, therefore, no duty is leviable on it. We find substance in the submissions of the learned Counsel that there is no mention either in the show cause notice or the adjudication order and impugned order that the impugned goods has concentration of 65% sugar by weight. The Tribunal also in the case of Venkatesh Beverages expressed its views that sugar syrup not containing 65% sugar is not excisable. In the interest of justice, we are of the view that matter should go back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
