TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Affirms Sugar Syrup Non-Excisable; Dismisses Revenue's Appeal on Marketability & Composition Grounds.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-IV Versus RAPTAKOS BRETT & CO. LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-IV Versus RAPTAKOS BRETT & CO. LTD. - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 101 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Classification of sugar syrup as excisable product under Chapter Heading No. 1702.30 of CETA, 1985.2. Applicability of penalty under Section 11A and extended period of limitation.3. Marketability of the product for levy of duty.4. Interpretation of the term 'sugar syrup not containing added flavouring or colouring matter' under Chapter Heading 1702.30.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of sugar syrup as an excisable product under Chapter Heading No. 1702.30 of CETA, 1985. The Department alleged that the sugar syrup manufactured by the Respondents was excisable and duty was payable on it. The Commissioner observed that the product in question contained additional ingredients besides sugar and water, making it distinct from the definition of 'sugar syrup.' The Commissioner also noted that the product lacked marketability and shelf life, further supporting the decision that it did not fall under the excisable category.2. The Respondents contended that the sugar syrup was a by-product of their manufacturing process and not a commercially viable product. They argued that the extended period of limitation should not be invoked as there was no intention to evade duty. The Commissioner agreed with the Respondents, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Padmini Products, emphasizing that mere inaction does not constitute willful suppression of facts to evade duty.3. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner's decision, arguing that the product was marketable based on the opinion of a Chemical Examiner and the existence of similar products in the market. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's ruling, stating that the product's lack of marketability and the presence of additional ingredients beyond sugar and water excluded it from the category of excisable goods.4. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions to support its conclusion that the product did not meet the criteria for classification as 'sugar syrup not containing added flavouring or colouring matter' under Chapter Heading 1702.30. The Tribunal held that the product's composition with other ingredients made it non-marketable and, therefore, not subject to duty under CETA, 1985.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on both limitation and merits, affirming that the sugar syrup in question was not excisable due to its composition, lack of marketability, and failure to meet the criteria specified under Chapter Heading 1702.30 of CETA, 1985.
TaxTMI 