Judgment:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Ranger Breweries Ltd. allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by this order Commissioner, Central Exxise, Chandigarh has filed this appeal.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture/propagation of yeast for captive use in the manufacture of alcoholic liquor which is not chargeable to Central Excise duty. The Department alleged that yeast being intermediate product were chargeable to duty by virtue of Notification No. 67/95-CE dated 16.3.95. Show-cause Notice was issued to the respondents herein asking them to explain as to why duty should not be demanded from them and why penalty should not be imposed.
3. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicating the case confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 18,676. He also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 2,500. The assessee went in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who held as indicated in the preceding paragraph.
4. Arguing the case for the Revenue Shri Atul Dikshit, learned DR reiterated the findings of the Assistant Commissioner in the Order-in-Original.
5. None appeared for the respondent (s). However, they have sent a written submission. In the written submission the respondents have stated that since their case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Ranger Breweries Ltd. which decision was further followed by the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh-I v. Mohan Meakin 2001 (47) RLT 923.
It has been prayed by the respondents that impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected.
6. We have heard the learned DR for the Revenue. We have also perused the written submissions made by the respondents. We have also perused the case-law cited and relied upon by the respondents. We note that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Ranger Breweries Ltd. This Tribunal in para 8 of its judgment held as under: 8. Revenue has itself mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the yeast manufactured/propagated had shelf life of six to eight hours.
Revenue has not adduced any evidence to show that the yeast in question is capable of being brought to the market for purpose of being bought and sold. The mere fact that some yeast is sold in the market is not sufficient to prove that all varieties of yeast are capable of being marketed. Similarly stray incidents of taking goods in question by one of the Appellants (M/s. Mohan Meakin Ltd.) to their another unit does not give characteristics of marketability to the impugned goods. The Apex Court in Moti Laminates case held that The purpose of specifying the goods in the Schedule is two fold, one, the rate on which the duty would be charged and other that if the goods satisfy the description and if are covered in the entry then they are liable to pay excise duty. But even in respect of specified goods it could be established that it was not marketable or capable of being marketed, therefore, no duty was leviable on it.
Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders and reject all the appeals filed by the Revenue.
We further note that this decision of the Tribunal has been followed by the Tribunal again in the case C.C.E., Chandigarh-I v. Mohan Meakin Ltd. cited above. Following the ratio of the above decision of the Tribunal we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The impugned order is, therefore, upheld and the appeal of Revenue is rejected.