AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1401
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nufacturer of biscuits on job work basis during which 'sugar invert syrup' (also referred to as 'sugar syrup'), is manufactured and captively consumed. The goods fall under Chapter Heading 19 and 17 of Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 (CETA), respectively. Biscuits are exempted from payment of central excise duty in terms of Notification No. 3/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 hence it was felt by the department that sugar syrup consumed captively is liable to discharge central excise duty. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice (SCN), was issued to the appellant and after due process an Order-in-Original (OIO), was passed demanding a duty of Rs.4,97,455/- along with interest for the period from December 2009 to February 2010. A penalty was also imposed und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove that sugar syrup is marketable and therefore cannot be subjected to levy of duty. The learned council stated that the appellant has reversed the credit related to inputs used for manufacturing sugar syrup, because biscuits were exempt from duty, thus complying with rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. He hence prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 3.2 We find that while a large number of judgments (more than 40), have been cited in the written submissions on various legal issues, but only copies of seven judgments were submitted along with the written submissions on 12.09.2025 and that too pertaining to the single issue of exigibility of sugar syrup only. Firstly citing a large number of judgments....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore parting with the judgment, we are constrained to observe with some reluctance about the recent practice and procedure of including list of authorities in the compilation without the leave of the Court. In many a case, even the senior counsel may not be aware of inclusion of such authorities in the compilation. In our considered opinion, this Court is not required to consider such decisions which are included in the compilation which were not cited at the Bar. In the present case, number of judgments are included in the compilation which were not cited at the Bar by any of the counsel. We have not dealt with them as we are not required to do so." (emphasis added) A Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal too had examined a similar issue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n are placed before us, and the sheer plethora of citations makes it inevitable that the order abjures from discussing every such decision, else the consequence will be inordinately lengthy orders." (emphasis added) We find that in this case not only were the judgments not cited at the Bar but copies of the same were also not enclosed with the written submissions. Hence we do not deem it necessary to examine and discuss these decisions. 3.3 The Ld. A.R. has reiterated the points mentioned in the findings of the impugned order. He stated that sugar syrup is specifically mentioned in the CETA and the appellant was paying duty on the said goods till May 2008 and was also taking input credit for discharging duty on the same. Hence the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osure has not been exercised by the appellant according to the standards of a reasonable man. However, that being so, as per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, no tax can be levied or collected except by authority of law. The department cannot charge and collect excess amount of tax than that which is due by law and payable by the assessee. This would apply even in the case of self-assessment. Further tax cannot be collected by consent of parties. It can only be levied as per the mandate of a taxing statute. 6. The burden of showing that the goods are marketable is on the department. No samples have been tested to determine the shelf life of the impugned goods, nor has a study of its marketability been done. The Hon'ble Supreme Co....