Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
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 re-processing of duty-paid bulk drugs received back by the manufacturer, followed by milling, blending, sifting, washing, solvent treatment and re-packing, amounted to manufacture so as to attract a fresh levy of central excise duty.
Analysis: The bulk drugs were returned after clearance on payment of duty and were re-processed under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal noted that Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 contains Note 11, under which labelling, re-labelling, repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, or any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer amounts to manufacture. However, the earlier decision in Pepsi Foods, which was followed here, had held that incidental re-packing and re-labelling during re-processing of damaged goods does not create a second levy of excise duty. The Tribunal further held that accepting the Revenue's contention would improperly treat repair and re-conditioning of existing goods as excisable manufacture, contrary to the basic principle that excise is attracted only by production or manufacture of new goods.
Conclusion: Re-processing of the returned bulk drugs did not amount to manufacture for the purpose of a second excise levy, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.