TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 210
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....medabad and ruled that the product Anhydrous Molasses produced by the respondents was not leviable to duty of excise. The Assistant Collector had held that Anhydrous Molasses was "Glucose in whatever form" falling under sub-item (1) of Item 1E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the said Schedule is hereinafter referred to as "the Schedule"). 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that during the manufacture of Anhydrous Dextrose by the respondents, an intermediate product Anhydrous Molasses emerges which the respondents use within their factory in the manufacture of Sorbitol, a chemical falling under Item 68 of the Schedule. Though directed by the Departmental Authorities to do so, the respondents app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the Assistant Collector nor before the Collector (Appeals) was any evidence placed by the Department to show that Anhydrous Molasses was being sold or capable of being sold or was known in the market as goods bought and sold as such. The Assistant Collector had, in his order, observed as follows :- "The manufacturer claims that the product Anhydrous Molasses is not marketable do not appear to be correct. The product Anhydrous Molasses is a form of dextrose which is marketable provided wide publicity are given. Here, the product Anhydrous Molasses manufactured for their own consumption and, therefore, no publicity appeared to have been given. The product Anhydrous is certainly excisable goods and no doubt that it is marketable." ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....commercially known product. (c) The fact of manufacture has to be presumed if the goods are specified in the Schedule. Reliance period on the Delhi High Court judgments in Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. -1980 E.L.T. 735 and Khandelwal Metal & Engineering v. Union of India and Ors. -1983 E.L.T. 292. 7. This Tribunal had, in the case of Maize Products v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad - 1988 (33) E.L.T. 143, held that "Wet Dextrose" and "Mother Liquor" emerging as intermediate products in the manufacture of Sorbitol were not excisable goods under Item 1E of the Schedule since the Department had not shown that they were marketable. However, the learned Departmental Representative sought to distingu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of both sides and persued the record. 10. It is an undisputed position that the subject goods do not fall under sub-item (2) of Item 1E, CET, for the reason that the percentage of reducing sugar, according to the Chemical Examiner's report, expressed as Anhydrous Dextrose, is less than 80 by weight. 11. The Department's contention is that the product is "Liquid Glucose" or "Glucose in whatever form". It is also contended that the goods are "Hydrol" which, according to the Department, is a marketable commodity. Reliance for this is placed on the following passage which occurs in para 8.13 ("Nomenclature" at page 608 of the book "Materials and Technology" (Longman J.H. DEBUSSY) Volume VII: "Hydrol. Properly this is the mother liq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore it by the Department to show that the goods were capable of being marketed. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal gave its decision in the Maize Products case (supra). In the present matter, however, as noted earlier, the Department has placed an authoritative reference work before us to show that "Hydrol" or "Mother Liquor" is a commodity known to commerce. The Counsel for the respondents also had, on the basis of this authority, accepted that the subject goods were marketable. We shall not, therefore, further go into this question but proceed on the basis that the goods were capable of being marketed. 13. The Department's contention is that Anhydrous Molasses falls under sub-item (1) of Item 1E, but the contention for the....