TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 614
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Present For the Respondent : Sh. Siddharth Jaiswal ( Jt. Commr. ) , AR Sh. Harish Kapoor ( Supdt. ) , AR Sh. Raman Mittal ( Insp. ) , AR ORDER PER : S. S. GARG Four appeals filed by M/s Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd 'Appellant No.1' and two appeals filed by M/s Max Builders 'Appellant No.2' are directed against different impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the ld. Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand under Section 11A and also imposed penalty on the Appellant No.1 under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Further, the ld. Commissioner has also imposed penalty on the Appellant No.2 under Rule 26 of of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Since the issue involved in all six appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the intelligence that the Appellant No.1 is evading central excise duty in respect of 'potato starch' classifiable under Tariff Item No. 11083100 of the Tariff by manufacturing and clearing the same clandestinely under the garb of scrap-veg-refuse without payment of appropriate duty and without reflecting the same in their monthly ER-1 returns, the unit was visited by the Central Excise Officers and after the detailed investigation, show cause notices were issued and after following the due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected the appeals filed by the Appellants. Hence, the present appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cess of recycling of water also reduced the load on the effluent treatment plant. The waste, arising during the process of recycling, contains vegetable residue which was being cleared by the Appellant No.1 as 'scrap-veg-refuse' during the relevant period. 3.5 He further submits that the Appellant No.1 is not engaged in the manufacturing of starch. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the following decisions wherein it has been held that to levy excise duty, the excisable goods needs to satisfy twin test of manufacture and marketability:- (a) Hindalco Industries Ltd vs UOI - 2015 (315) ELT 10 (Bom.) affirmed by SC as 2019 (367) ELT A246 (SC) (b) Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd vs. UOI - 2014 (300) ELT 372 (All.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nerated from the industrial processing of vegetable material in order to extract some of their constituents. 3.8 He further submits that from the description of the goods mentioned in Chapter 23.08, it is cleared that the impugned goods qualifies all the criteria mentioned in the said Chapter Heading and therefore, is liable to nil rate of duty. 3.9 He further submits that the impugned goods is not classifiable as 'potato starch' under Chapter Heading 11081300 as the said product does not meet the criteria as provided in the HSN explanatory notes for the Chapter 1108. The HSN explanatory notes clearly states that the potato starch falling under Chapter 1108 shall be physically in white powdered form, however, in the present case, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e on the following case-laws: (a) CCE vs Priyanka Refineries Ltd - 2010 (249 ELT 70 (Tri. Bang) (b) Ricela Health Foods Ltd vs CCE, Chandigarh - 2018 (361) ELT 1049 (Tri. LB) affirmed by SC as 2022 (382) ELT 436 (SC) (c) CCE vs Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd - 2006 (203) ELT 3 (SC) (d) Deepak Vegpro Pvt Ltd Vanaspati Division vs CCE, Patna - 2022-TIOL-749-CESTAT-KOL 3.11 The learned Counsel for the Appellants also contested the invokation of extended period of limitation and the imposition of penalty. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR reiterated the findings of the impugned orders. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... potato starch extraction explained by the International Institute of Starch, Denmark and also filed an affidavit of their Associate Director of Research & Development Division clarifying the difference between 'potato starch' and 'scrap-veg-refuse'. 8. Besides this, we also find that the impugned goods is not a manufactured product as per Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which mandates that excisable goods must come into existence as a result of manufacturing process so as to attract the levy of excise duty; whereas in the present case, 'scrap-veg-refuse' came into existence pursuant to process of recycling of waste water, undertaken only to reuse the reusable water content in the waste water. 9. Further, we find that te....