(A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai ____ Appellant
v.
M/s. Parle Bisleri Pvt. Ltd. __________________ Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 3494/2006, decided on September 1, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The respondent-assessee manufactures sugar syrup as an intermediate product which is used in the manufacture of aerated water. The Revenue wanted to impose excise duty thereon on the ground that it contains 75.2% sugar contents and, therefore, was to be classifiable under Heading 1702. The assessee on the other hand took up the defence that the sugar contents are less than 65%. However, it is not even necessary to go into this aspect inasmuch as it is not in dispute that in any case the said product is exempted from duty as per Notification No. 217/86-CE dated 02.04.1986 as amended by Notification No. 79/91-CE dated 25.7.1991. Taking note of this very fact the Tribunal has observed as under:
“4. We agree with the learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the demand of duty cannot be, in any case, sustained in respect of the sugar syrup consumed captively, inasmuch as if the same is considered excisable, the same would be exempted in terms of the provisions of Notification No. 217/86.”
2. The aforesaid position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.
3. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
———
