TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 147
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntral Excise Act, 1944, and imposition of penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under rule 25 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 which had been upheld in order [order-in-appeal no. P-I/MMD/224/2012 dated 23rd November 2012] of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) now impugned in this appeal. 2. The issue, in brief, pertains to the excisability of 'sugar syrup' produced by them for use in manufacture of biscuits that were exempted from payment of duty, in terms of notification no. 3/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 and, thereby, requiring duties of central excise to be discharged on intermediate products in accordance with notification no. 67/95-CE dated 1st March 1995. 3. The primary contention of the appellant is that 'sugar syrup' is not an intermediate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration Ltd relates to an entirely different product, viz. 'sugar concentrate', utilized in the manufacture of fruit juice. We find that the Tribunal, in disposing off appeal in re Venugopal Foods Pvt Ltd, has held that '3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the goods do not conform to the description in heading no. 17029090 of First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that, for want of shelf-life, the definition of 'excisable goods' in section 2 (d) of Central Excise Act, 1944, viz. '"Goods" includes any article, material or substance which is capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and such goods shall be deemed to be marketable.' as incorporated with effect from 10th May 2008, and rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 (245) ELT 707 (Tri-Chennai)], upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Spectra Bottling Co Ltd [2006 (198) ELT 417 (Tri-Bang)] to arrive at the conclusion that concentration of sugar in the syrup of more than 65% and the presence of citric acid would render the goods marketable and, hence, liable to duty of central excise. 5. There can be no doubt that, unless otherwise established, the deemed marketability of 'sugar syrup' is beyond question. It is also admitted that the appellant had been discharging duty liability on 'sugar syrup' as 'intermediate goods' till July 2008 and had discontinued payment of duty on advice from their client, M/s Parle Products Pvt Ltd. For the sweetening of....