2017 (2) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ija, Supdt. (AR), for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The facts of the case is that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of fruit juice falling under Chapter heading No.20 & 21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act,1985. The appellant also manufacturing sugar syrup falling under Chapter sub-heading 1702.30 of CETA, 1985 chargeable to Central Excise duty @ 12% advalorem consumed the same cap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....med by the original authority, however, the penalty was set aside. 2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. 3. Shri Sanjay Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings in the impugned order. He further submits that as per the CRCL test report, the sugar concentrate is 76% and the citric acid as a preservative was also added. In this fact in the vario....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ein it was clarified, with the consultation of the Chief Chemist, that in case if the citric acid is added in the sugar solution and the sugar concentration is 65% by weight or more it may have shelf life. Therefore, as per the facts of the present case which is supported by the judgements cited above, the sugar syrup has shelf life and is marketable. Therefore, it is liable to duty, even though u....