10 lakhs.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.
Similarly, another companypany manufactured Soda ash by solvay ammonia soda process for which also carbon dioxide was required and this was produced by the petitioner therein by burning lime stone with companye in a kiln in the same manner as the appellant sugar manufacturing companypanies employing the carbonation process.
The carbon dioxide companytent in this mixture of gases ranged from 27 to 36.5.
Writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the validity of the excise duty but the same petitions were dismissed.
In the premises, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the Collector.
22 15 NA of 1988.
In the said proceedings, affidavits were filed on behalf of the respondent, witnesses on behalf of the revenue were cross examined and the Collector also cross examined the witnesses of the respondent.
It was held by him that starch hydrolysate was glucose and fell under item 1 E of the Central Excise Tariff and that the respondent had suppressed the fact of manufacture thereof for companysumption in the further manufacture of sorbitol.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.11.87 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
In the premises, he ordered the respondent to pay excise duty amounting to Rs.34,92,559.55 paise and imposed a penalty of Rs.
The IS Specification defines liquid glucose or glucose syrup as a refined and companycentrated number crystalizable aqueous solution of d glucose, maltose and other polymers of d glucose, obtained by companytrolled hydroly sis of starch companytaining material.
M s Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises manufacture sorbitol failing under item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tar iff.
There were adjudication proceedings thereafter.
478 of 86 D Order No.
A reply was filed on behalf of the respondent companytending that starch hydrolysate was number goods since the same was number marketable and, therefore, numberexcise duty would be payable on the same.
The mixture of gases so generated was number carbon dioxide as known to the market number was it accord ing to the specifications laid down by the Indian Standards Institution which required the carbon dioxide companytent to be at least 99.
877 of 1987 D. K. Ganguli, T.V.S.N. Chari, P. Parmeswaran and Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There was a visit to the factory premises of the re spondent by the Central Excise Officers on 26th February, 1985.
It was allowed that it was found that the respondent manufactured and captively companysumed starch hydrolysate but the respondent had failed to take out a licence with reference to the said manufacture of starch hydrolysate and had been removing the same without, according to the appellant, payment of duty and without observing the necessary central excise formali ties.
By an order dated 6th December, 1985, the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda rejected frae companytention of the respondent.
The Tribunal by its order dated 2nd November, 1987, being the order under appeal, held that starch hydrolysate manufac tured by the respondent is number and never was marketable companymodity, and hence that would number be goods on which excise duty companyld be charged.
Soli J. Sorabjee, R. Narain, Kamal Mehta, P K. Ram and N. Misra for the Respondent.
It was the view of the revenue that starch hydrolysate was glucose and, therefore, fell under Item 1 E of the Central Excise Tariff, which companyered glucose in whatever form including liquid glucose.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal under section 35L b of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The kiln gas in question, therefore, was neither carbon dioxide number companypressed carbon dioxide known as such to the companymercial companymunity and therefore, companyld number attract item 14 H in the First Schedule.
The respondent, viz.,
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has companye up in appeal to this Court under section 35L b of the Act.
The appeal is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 1987 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
Accordingly, a show cause numberice was issued to the respondent.
