Ravi Foods Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...
- CitationAppeal No. 69-2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question is whether sugar syrup emerging as an intermediate in the manufacture of biscuits attracts excise duty when the final product is exempt. The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following proposition: where the assessee contends that the intermediate sugar syrup is not marketable, and the Tribunal has in earlier decisions treated that marketability question as one requiring determination, the demand cannot be sustained without first ascertaining whether the sugar syrup is marketable, so the matter must be remanded to the adjudicating authority to determine that question afresh in light of those decisions.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 69-2013 dated 27/08/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise , HYDERABAD-I( Appeal) ]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Ravi Foods Pvt Ltd Unit-ii, 7-3-122/1. Madhuban Colony Road, Kattedan HYDERABAD - 500077 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Hyderabad-i KENDRIYA SHULK BHAVAN, L.B STADIUM ROAD, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD, - 500004 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant
Shri Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 18/02/2015
Date of Decision: 18/02/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 20868 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of biscuits falling under Chapter 19 of Central Excise Tariff Act. The biscuits having MRP of less than Rs.100 are exempted from payment of duty. During the course of manufacture of biscuits sugar syrup comes into existence which is used captively by the appellant. As the final product of the appellant is exempted, Revenue is of the view that sugar syrup which comes into existence at the intermediate stage should discharge duty liability. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against the appellant for confirmation of demand, resulting in passing of the present impugned order confirming duty to the extent of Rs.2,42,778/- for the period from March 2007 to 11/09/2011. It may be mentioned here that vide Notification No.39/2011-CE dt. 12/09/2011, exemption stand granted to the sugar syrup manufactured in the factory and further use in the manufacture of biscuits with the MRP of less than Rs.100/-.
2. An identical issue was the subject matter of the remand decision of the Tribunal in the case of Pahal Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad-IV [Final Order No.27027/2013 dt. 29/11/2013. By taking note of the earlier precedent decisions, the matter was remanded to the lower authorities to find out the marketability of the sugar syrup in question. The appellants have prayed for adopting the said decision.
3. We find that the Tribunal in number of cases has considered the assesses stand that such sugar syrup, which comes into existence in the factory, is not marketable and the matter stand remanded to the lower authorities to consider the said submission of the assesses as regards the marketability of the sugar syrup. By adopting the same, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made in the case of Pahal Foods (supra) as also one made in the case of Homemade Bakers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rohtak [2012(280) ELT 429 (Tri. Del.)]. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Pronounced in court)
B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja..
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free