2026-VIL-1537-CESTAT-AHM-CE
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1537-CESTAT-AHM-CE

CENTRAL EXCISE CESTAT Cases

Central Excise - Sugar syrup as intermediate product manufactured for captive consumption - Marketability test - Applicability of Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - Appellant manufactured biscuits exempt from excise duty under Notification No.03/2006-CE and also manufactured sugar syrup captively for use in biscuit production without paying excise duty during September 2009 to September 2011, claiming that sugar syrup being non-marketable intermediate product was not excisable goods. Revenue issued show cause notice proposing recovery of central excise duty under Section 11A(4) along with interest and penalty - Whether sugar syrup containing 80 percent sugar content manufactured by appellant and captively consumed in manufacture of exempt biscuits is an excisable good - HELD - The test of marketability under Section 2(d) of CEA, 1944, as explained in the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2008, requires that goods must be capable of being bought and sold for a consideration and are deemed to be marketable. So long as product is capable of being bought and sold, it is excisable - Marketability is a decisive test of dutiability and not actual marketing. The sugar syrup in the present case contains sugar content of 80 percent by weight and would have shelf life without addition of any preservative. The sugar syrup satisfies the requirement of marketability and is therefore both marketable and excisable goods - The sugar syrup manufactured as per own specifications with sugar content of 80 percent by weight and intended for their principal comes into existence as result of process of manufacture and is distinct product capable of being bought and sold - Regarding invocation of extended period, the appellant had sent letter indicating various ingredients used in biscuit manufacture, which was generic in nature and not an intimation regarding non-payment of excise duty on sugar syrup as same was manufactured captively and not shown in ER-1 returns filed with department. Accordingly, defence taken by appellant for non-invocation of extended period is not correct and extended period is justified - In case duty liability on sugar syrup is held, appellant should be allowed the Cenvat credit on the quantity of sugar so consumed to manufacture sugar syrup - The demand of central excise duty, recovery of interest and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC are upheld - The appeal is partially allowed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST Critical issues: ITC on...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?