Manufacture on imported goods requires more than labeling; MRP stickers and slogans alone do not justify excise duty.

Mere affixation of MRP labels or sales slogans on imported bathing bars does not, by itself, amount to manufacture where the goods were already marketable in imported condition. The note also states that classification under Chapter 33 and the related duty demand were not sustainable because no material showed the goods were different in composition or use, and the issue had already been settled for the same brand. It further records that excise liability could not be fastened on the appellant where the processing was done by an independent job worker, with any liability, if at all, attaching to the person actually undertaking the activity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported bathing bars were classifiable under Chapter 33 and liable to central excise duty on the basis of the labeling and bundling activity; (ii) Whether affixing MRP labels and adding sales slogans on the imported goods amounted to manufacture within the meaning of the chapter note; (iii) Whether any excise liability could be fastened on the appellant when the activity was carried out by an independent job worker.

Issue (i): Whether the imported bathing bars were classifiable under Chapter 33 and liable to central excise duty on the basis of the labeling and bundling activity.

Analysis: The classification and duty issue had already been settled in relation to the same brand and no material was shown to establish that the imported goods were different in composition or use so as to warrant a different classification. The reasoning that the goods fell under Chapter 33 was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The classification under Chapter 33 and the resulting duty demand were not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether affixing MRP labels and adding sales slogans on the imported goods amounted to manufacture within the meaning of the chapter note.

Analysis: The chapter note issue was treated as settled against the revenue by precedent. The record did not show that the goods were not marketable in the imported condition, and the mere placement of labels or slogans did not establish manufacture. The earlier decisions relied upon supported the assessee's position.

Conclusion: The labeling and slogan activity did not amount to manufacture for the purpose of excise duty.

Issue (iii): Whether any excise liability could be fastened on the appellant when the activity was carried out by an independent job worker.

Analysis: The activity was carried out at the premises of an independent job worker, and liability, if any, had to be determined against the person actually undertaking the activity. On that footing, the demand could not be sustained against the appellant company.

Conclusion: Excise liability could not be fastened on the appellant for the job-worker activity.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand, penalty and interest were unsustainable, and the assessee was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere affixation of MRP labels or promotional slogans on imported goods does not amount to manufacture in the absence of evidence that the goods were rendered marketable only by such activity, and duty liability cannot be sustained against an assessee where the relevant processing is undertaken by an independent job worker.

---