1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
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>Appeal remanded for fair hearing on excisability & duty liability in sugar syrup manufacturing process</h1> The appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and comprehensive consideration of technical evidence before reaching a final ... Adjudication - Personal hearing Issues:1. Challenge to the correctness of the Order-in-Original and demand made by the Collector of Central Excise.2. Allegations of clandestine consumption of sugar syrup and evasion of Central Excise duty.3. Denial of allegations by the appellants and contention of time-barred show cause notice.4. Dispute over excisability of sugar syrup and imposition of penalty.5. Violation of principles of natural justice in the ex-parte proceedings.6. Interpretation of excisability and marketability of sugar syrup in the manufacturing process.Analysis:1. The appellants contested the Order-in-Original and demand by the Collector, challenging allegations of clandestine consumption of sugar syrup. The Department accused them of evading Central Excise duty by clandestinely manufacturing and consuming sugar syrup in the production of aerated waters. The appellants denied these claims and argued that the show cause notice was time-barred.2. The Collector concluded that the sugar syrup was captively used in manufacturing aerated water, classifiable under sub-heading 1702.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. He deemed the sugar syrup excisable and subject to duty, confirming the demand and imposing a penalty for intentional evasion.3. The appellants disputed the Collector's findings, arguing that sugar syrup was not a marketable commodity and challenging the imposition of penalty without concrete evidence of excisability. They contended that the sugar solution in their manufacturing process did not constitute a new marketable commodity under the tariff.4. The Tribunal acknowledged the efforts of both parties in presenting technical literature but noted a violation of natural justice in the ex-parte proceedings. The appellants were not given a fair opportunity to present their case fully, leading to a remand for de novo adjudication by the Collector.5. The Departmental Representative cited technical literature to support excisability and marketability of sugar syrup, while the appellants referenced a circular and argued against the imposition of excise duty based on the current regulations.6. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Collector for a fresh review, considering all technical evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Collector was instructed to reevaluate excisability, marketability, and other relevant aspects, granting the appellants an opportunity to present their evidence during the hearing.Judgment:The appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and comprehensive consideration of technical evidence before reaching a final decision on excisability and duty liability regarding the sugar syrup manufacturing process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
