Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (10) TMI 318 - AT - Central ExciseDemand state excise duties - Manufacturer Of Sugar Syrup based products such as Neogadine, Neogadine (SG) etc - Dutiability - Limitation - Extended period - HELD THAT:- It is seem from the Commissioner’s order that he set aside the demand for December 1992 to May 1997 on the ground that it is barred by limitation applying the ratio of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Padmini Products [1989 (8) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. In this case the Supreme Court held that mere inaction on the part an assessee cannot be construed as willful suppression. We observe that the Tribunal in the case of Duke & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, [2004 (3) TMI 294 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] referred to CBEC Circulars issued in 1989, 1994 & 1996 on the subject of excisability/marketability of sugar syrup and held that when the issue was bogged down in controversy, suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty cannot be alleged against the assessees. The period in dispute coincides with the years in which the said circulars were issued. We, therefore, uphold the Commissioner’s order that the demand for the period December 1992 to May 1997 is barred by limitation. The impugned product, in our view is not a product, which is marketable and therefore we hold it to be not excisable. The syrup that came into existence at the intermediate stage appears to have other ingredients which effectively take it out of the product from known as ‘sugar syrups’ for the purpose of levy of duty under CETA, 1985. Revenue’s appeal is rejected both on limitation and on merits.
|