2013 (4) TMI 645

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. E/973/2006 September 1997 to October 1998 Rs.1,16,231/- Rs.1,16,231/- 2. E/984/2006 10.10.98 to March 2001 Rs.1,62,085/- Rs.1,62,085/- Rs.1,000/- 3. E/985/2006 April 2001 to June 2001 Rs.13,876/- Rs.13,876/- 4. E/986/2006 July 2001 to February 2002 Rs.91,936/- Rs.91,936/- 5. E/987/2006 March 2002 to August 2002 Rs.39,328/- -- 6. E/988/2006 September 2002 to June 2003 Rs.72,499/- Rs.2,000/- The impugned demands of duty are on 'treated water' brought from the assessee's factory to their own vending outlets where the water was converted to aerated water through addition of syrup and the finished product was marketed. The ques....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt has not conducted any enquiry to show that the treated water was marketed because the said water has been supplied only to the vending machine outlets. This is the factual situation. The department is heavily relying on Note 2 to Chapter 22 which has already been reproduced in this order. In the present case, we cannot say that the processes mentioned in Note 2 to Chapter 22 such as filtration, purification, labeling or relabeling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs etc., render this treated water marketable in the absence of its actual sales to buyers. The treated water had not been sold with any profit motive. In the absence of the essential ingredient of sale, we do not agree that the said product is marketable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ind force in the contention that the name "cococola" is only a house mark of the company. It cannot be said that the treated water is marketed under the brand name of cococola in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. CCE cited (supra). The processes undertaken for treatment of water did not result in the emergence of new product. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the Original Authority. The duty demand is not sustainable. Under these circumstances, no penalty is leviable. Hence we reject the revenue's appeals. 2. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the civil appeals f....