Tribunal rules in favor of M/s. Cool Desserts, finding no manufacture under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal held that the activities of M/s. Cool Desserts did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, as the end products were deemed to be essentially ice-cream in a different form. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalties was set aside. Regarding the price charged by M/s. Cool Desserts, it was determined that it should not be considered as cum-duty price since no duty was payable due to the non-manufacture finding. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the normal wholesale price should exclude excise duty.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the activities undertaken by M/s. Cool Desserts amount to manufacture.
2. Whether the price charged by M/s. Cool Desserts should be regarded as cum-duty price.

Issue 1: Activities Undertaken by M/s. Cool Desserts - Manufacture:
The appeals involved a dispute over whether the activities of M/s. Cool Desserts, which included preparing various ice-cream products by adding ingredients to bulk-purchased ice-cream, amounted to manufacturing. The central question was whether the end products were distinct commodities from the original ice-cream. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on previous judgments to support the imposition of Central Excise duty and penalties. The Advocate for M/s. Cool Desserts argued that the products sold were not separate and distinct from the original ice-cream, citing relevant case law such as Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax (Law) v. PIO Food Packers and C.C.E., Kanpur v. Supersoft Productions (P) Ltd. The Tribunal applied the two-fold test laid down by the Supreme Court in U.O.I. v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd. to determine whether the processes undertaken by M/s. Cool Desserts constituted manufacturing. It was concluded that the addition of toppings, nuts, sauces, and other ingredients did not result in the emergence of a new commercial product, as the end product remained essentially ice-cream in a different form. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the activities of M/s. Cool Desserts did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, setting aside the demand for duty and penalties.

Issue 2: Price Charged by M/s. Cool Desserts - Cum-Duty Price:
The second aspect of the judgment dealt with whether the price charged by M/s. Cool Desserts should be considered as cum-duty price. The Revenue had filed an appeal against the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who treated the price as cum-duty price based on a Tribunal decision in Shri Chakra Tyres Ltd. v. C.C.E. The Revenue also relied on the Supreme Court case of Bata India. However, since the Tribunal ruled that no duty was payable by M/s. Cool Desserts due to the activities not amounting to manufacture, the issue of determining the assessable value became irrelevant. The Tribunal further noted that the Revenue's appeal against the Shri Chakra Tyre's decision had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Supreme Court precedent in C.C.E., Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. emphasized that the amount realized from the sale of goods should be considered as the normal wholesale price, excluding the element of excise duty incorporated in the sale price. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the price charged by M/s. Cool Desserts should not be regarded as cum-duty price.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the legal reasoning behind the decision rendered in each aspect of the case.

---