Exemption for sugar cubes denied where the notification did not expressly cover them and excisability could not be reopened in the exemption appeal.

Notification No. 15/89 was held not to extend to sugar cubes because the exemption expressly covered castor, icing, demarara and candy sugar, but did not include sugar cubes, which were treated as a separate commodity for classification. The precedent relating to sugar cubes was preferred over the one on coffee tablets because it concerned the same product and supported separate classification. The question of excisability could not be reopened in the exemption appeal, as the challenge was confined to notification benefit and the assessee had itself filed the classification treating the product as excisable. The denial of exemption was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether sugar cubes were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 15/89; and (ii) whether the issue of excisability of sugar cubes could be raised in the appeal against the classification dispute.

Issue (i): Whether sugar cubes were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 15/89.

Analysis: The notification specifically exempted castor, icing, demarara and candy sugar, but did not include sugar cubes. The commodity was separately treated in classification and the precedent dealing with sugar cubes was followed in preference to the one concerning coffee tablets, as the former related to the same commodity and supported separate classification of sugar cubes.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 15/89 was not available to sugar cubes, and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the issue of excisability of sugar cubes could be raised in the appeal against the classification dispute.

Analysis: The challenge before the appellate authority was confined to the availability of the notification benefit. The assessee had itself filed the classification treating the product as excisable, and the question of excisability was held to be outside the scope of that appeal.

Conclusion: The issue of excisability could not be raised in the appeal, and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal concerns only the grant of exemption on a classification list voluntarily filed by the assessee, the assessee cannot reopen the distinct question of excisability in that appeal, and exemption will not extend to a commodity not covered by the notification's express terms.

---