TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal 6-7/2017 dated 28/02/2016 for the period of 01/12/2009 to 31/05/2011. 2. The brief facts of the case are that during the period under consideration, the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of biscuits and used the sugar syrup which was prepared within factory. The appellant has claimed the exemption of the Excise duty under the Notification No. 67/95 dated 16/03/1995 which was denied by the department. Being aggrieved the present appeals have been filed by the assessee. 3. Heard Shri Jatin Mahajan, Ld Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri S.K. Bansal, Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the appeal record. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of record, it appears tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal has held as under: 8. Next comes the question of classification. The Department has classified the product, in question, under sub-heading 1702 90 90. Sub-heading 1702 90 90 comes under the 6 digit sub-heading 1702 90 which covers "other sugars including invert sugar and sugar syrup blends containing in the dry stage 50% by weight of fructose". The goods, in question, are sought to be classified under 1702 90 90 as "sugar syrup blends containing in dry stage, 50% by weight of fructose". In our view for classification as "sugar syrup blend" in this sub-heading the product 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 conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion, in dry state was 50%. 9. Even if it is assumed that the goods, in question, are covered by sub-heading 1702 90 90, for attracting Central Excise duty the goods must be proved to be marketable. The Tribunal had remanded this matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for examining the question of marketability of the goods, in question. In this regard it is settled law that the marketability of a product has to be established in the condition in which it emerges. In this regard the Apex Court in the case of Bata India Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi (supra) has held that the test of marketability is whether product is marketable in condition in which it emerges. In this regard the marketability of the goods produced by a particular manufacture....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....syrup is ordinary cane sugar syrup or is invert sugar syrup has to be ascertained by chemical test which has not been done. It is, therefore, totally wrong to presume a given sugar syrup as invert sugar syrup without test. The judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Gujarat Narmada Valley Fert. Co. Ltd. v. CCE & Cus. (supra), Nicholaas Piramal India Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai (supra) and Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE & Cus, Daman (supra) cited by the learned DR are not applicable to the facts of this case. 10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that neither there is any evidence to prove that the goods, in question, are classifiable under 1702 90 90 nor there is any evidence to prove that the goods, in question, in form in ....