https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92212 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. en-us Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:49:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92212 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 28 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92212