Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.75 seconds)
Patwari Bakers Pvt Limited vs Madurai on 11 July, 2023 cites

Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex., New Delhi on 12 February, 2004

It is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on this plea. Not only this, there is no evidence to show that before seeking classification of the goods, in question, under sub-heading 1702 90 90, the samples drawn from the goods had been got tested by the CRCL to confirm as to whether the fructose content of the goods, in question, in dry stage is 50% by weight. Just because the appellant during period till June 2008 were paying duty on the goods by classifying the same under sub-heading 1702 90 90, it cannot be presumed that they had accepted that the goods, in question, conform to be description of sugar syrup blends of sub-heading 1702 90 for which the sugar syrup in dry stage must contain 50% by weight of fructose. The Apex Court in the case of Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. V. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) has held that filing of classification list mistakenly dose not mean that party has to pay duty, if in law, he is not bound to pay duty. Same view has been taken by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of BonanzoEngg.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 39 - Full Document

Bata India Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi on 12 April, 2010

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 cannot be presumed on the basis of the marketability of the similar goods in different condition being produced by another manufacturer, unless it shown that the two products are identical. In these cases, the 5 Appeal. Nos.: E/40607-40609/2013 Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the goods, in question, to be marketable only on the basis that the "invert sugar syrup" being manufactured by M/s. DhampurSpeciality Sugar Ltd. is being sold to M/s. Britannia Industries, M/s. J.B. Managaram Food Industries and M/s. ITC Ltd. In our view this basis of holding that the goods, in question, are marketable is absolutely wrong, as it has been presumed that the sugar syrup being made by the appellants is identical to the "invert sugar syrup" being made by M/s.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 8 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilisers Co. ... vs C.C.E. And Cus. on 8 January, 1997

-19.7. The process of hydrolysis of cane sugar (which is dextrorotatory i.e. with rotation of + 66.5) is also called inversion, as the mixture of glucose and fructose formed by this process is levorotatory with sp. Rotation of -19.7 and for this reason the mixture of glucose and fructose formed by hydrolysis of cane sugar is called invert sugar. The invert sugar has longer shelf life. Whether a sugar 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.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Gb Bakers Industries Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 1 July, 2014

"6. The issue is whether the sugar syrup, which is an intermediate item and captively consumed can be subject to levy of duty. The said issue is decided by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Badami Goods (supra) and M/s. Rishi Bakers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur reported in 2018 (328) ELT 634 (Tri.-Delhi). On similar set of facts the contention of the department that sugar syrup is marketable and, therefore, subject to levy of duty was rejected by the Tribunal. The department does not have a case that they have conducted any test to prove the element of fructose contained in sugar syrup in these appeals.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

M/S. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Unit Iv vs Cce, Salem on 19 February, 2016

"7. The dispute in the present case is as to whether sugar syrup made by the appellant for captive use in the manufacture of exempted biscuits is chargeable to Central Excise duty under sub- heading 1702 90 90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Department's contention is that since the sugar syrup is used in the manufacture of the exempted biscuits, the benefit of Notification No. 67/95-C.E. would not be available. In this regard, the contention of the appellant is that in terms of the proviso to Notification No. 67/95-C.E., the full duty exemption to intermediate products being used for captive consumption is available if a manufacturer discharges the obligation under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. We do not accept this plea, as in terms of proviso to Notification No. 67/95-C.E., the full duty exemption to intermediate product is available under this to exempted final product, a dutiable final product also by using common Cenvat credit availed inputs and in respect of exempted final product, he has discharged the obligation prescribed under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. In this case, it is now known as to whether the appellant throughout during the period of dispute, were manufacturing only exempted final product or along with the exempted final product were also manufacturing dutiable final product. The proviso to notification is applicable only in a situation where by using common Cenvat credit availed inputs, a manufacturer manufactures dutiable as well as exempted final product> and in respect of the exempted final product, the obligation under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules has been discharged. ShriPatil in this regard has cited the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Sakthi Sugars Ltd. V. CCE, Salem reported in 2008 (230) ELT 676 (Tri.-Chennai). We have gone through this 4 Appeal. Nos.: E/40607-40609/2013 judgment. In our view ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1