2022 (2) TMI 665 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules sugar syrup in biscuit manufacturing not excisable under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the sugar syrup used in the manufacture of biscuits was not excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ... Recovery of tax - inputs used in the manufacture of Sugar Syrup - as the finished goods are exempt from payment of duty, Revenue was of the view that the appellants were required to discharge the duty as the benefit of exemption Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 was not admissible to them - HELD THAT:- The issue decided in the case of VENUGOPAL FOODS PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE – II [2018 (12) TMI 1172 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that In the absence of any test report to contradict the ‘fructose’ content in the ‘sugar syrup’ produced by the appellant, it is not sufficient reasons found to consider the impugned goods to be excisable within the meaning of section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Since the issue is squarely covered by the above decision, after consideration of the arguments as advanced in the impugned order and by the learned AR during the course of argument, there are no reason to sustain the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:1. Confirmation of Central Excise duty demand on sugar syrup used in the manufacture of exempted biscuits.2. Interest liability on the confirmed duty.3. Imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules.4. Marketability and classification of sugar syrup.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Confirmation of Central Excise Duty Demand:The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,10,892/- for the period July 2010 to October 2010, under Section 11A(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) with a modification allowing the appellants to avail Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of sugar syrup, subject to verification by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner.2. Interest Liability:The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the interest liability on the duty amount from the due date till payment, under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This was also upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).3. Imposition of Penalty:A penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The order also stated that this was without prejudice to any other action under the Central Excise Act, 1944, or any other law.4. Marketability and Classification of Sugar Syrup:The appellants argued that the issue was settled in their favor in previous Tribunal decisions, asserting that sugar syrup used in biscuit manufacturing was not marketable and thus not excisable. The Revenue, however, contended that the sugar syrup, with a soluble solid content of more than 65% and the addition of citric acid, was marketable and liable to excise duty. They cited various opinions and previous decisions to support their claim.Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:The Tribunal considered the impugned order and submissions. It noted that the sugar syrup, with a concentration of more than 65% and the presence of citric acid, was deemed marketable and liable to excise duty. However, it emphasized the necessity of establishing marketability in the condition in which the product emerges. The Tribunal referenced previous decisions, including those involving similar circumstances, where it was held that the sugar syrup used in biscuit manufacturing was not marketable.The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the specific role and process of sugar syrup in biscuit manufacturing. It highlighted that the stability and marketability of 'invert sugar' were not properly appreciated. The Tribunal concluded that the sugar syrup used by the appellants did not meet the marketability requirements and was not excisable.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, stating that the sugar syrup used in the manufacture of biscuits was not excisable under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision was pronounced in the open court.