TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 235
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar syrup ( as an intermediate product), falling under sub-heading No.170 29 090 is produced and the same is captively consumed in the manufacture of final product i.e. Biscuits. In terms of the provision of Notification No.22/2007 CE dated 2.5.2007, the appellants has been manufacturing Biscuits valued upto Rs. 100 per kg, which have been exempted from payment of duty. Hence, they became liable to pay duty on the intermediate product namely sugar syrup because the exemption Notification No.67/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 is not applicable when the final product is exempted from payment of excise duty. The appellant was paying excise duty on sugar syrup since May, 2007, but from July, 2008 the appellant stop paying any duty on the clearance of sug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt sub-rule of Rule 25 has not been mentioned and there was no suppression of facts to evade duty. 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue referred to the CBEC Circular dated 07.11.1994 and argued that the sugar syrup with the addition of citric acid as preservation has a shelf life and it is marketable and it is liable to duty. He also invited attention to the findings of the adjudicating authority, wherein it is mentioned that the sugar syrup has a shelf life and the sugar content more than 80%. He also reiterated the findings in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). 4. Heard the parties and perused the records. 5. We find that the issue in the present case is whether sugar syrup made by the appellant for captive use in the manufacture of exemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....must contain 50% by weight of fructose sugar in dry state. In these cases, the appellant's plea from the very beginning has been that the fructose sugar content is less than 50% and in this regard they have produced the test report of Shriram Institute of Industrial Research. It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on this plea. Not only this, there is no evidence to show that before seeking classification of the goods, in question, under sub-heading 1702 90 90, the samples drawn from the goods had been got tested by the CRCL to confirm as to whether the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry stage is 50% by weight. Just because the appellant during period till June 2008 were paying duty on the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ability is whether product is marketable in condition in which it emerges. In this regard the marketability of the goods produced by a particular manufacturer cannot be presumed on the basis of the marketability of the similar goods in different condition being produced by another manufacturer, unless it shown that the two products are identical. In these cases, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods, in question, to be marketable only on the basis that the invert sugar syrup being manufactured by M/s. Dhampur Speciality Sugars Ltd. is being sold to M/s. Britannia Industries, M/s. J.B. Mangaram Food Industries and M/s. ITC Ltd. In our view this basis of holding that the goods, in question, are marketable is absolutely wrong, as ....