Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether affixing a fresh brand label and re-labelling containers of glass and household cleaners amounted to manufacture under Note 6 to Chapter 34 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and whether duty, penalty and confiscation could therefore be sustained.
Analysis: The Tribunal applied the earlier decision in the same assessee's case and held that, prior to the 1997 amendment, the expression "any other treatment to render the product marketable" did not cover mere labelling or re-labelling of containers. The process undertaken was limited to removing the original labels and affixing the brand name "COLIN", which did not bring the activity within the deeming provision then in force. As the manufacture finding failed, the connected duty demand, penalties and confiscation could not survive.
Conclusion: The process of re-labelling did not amount to manufacture under the unamended provision, and the demand, penalties and confiscation were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the impugned order was set aside on the ground that the activity did not constitute manufacture under the relevant tariff note.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere re-labelling of containers, without the later specific statutory amendment bringing such activity within the deeming provision, does not amount to manufacture under the tariff note covering treatment to render goods marketable.