Amended manufacture definition covers packing loose footwear into unit containers with labelling and MRP marking, attracting excise duty.

Packing loose footwear into unit containers, together with labelling, affixing MRP, logo and bar code, falls within the amended definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the process includes packing or repacking of specified goods in a unit container and other treatment that renders the goods marketable. Duty is therefore attracted on such goods. Where footwear was already received in unit containers and only labels, MRP or bar codes were affixed, entitlement to abatements depended on proof of pre-packed receipt and required separate verification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the processes of packing footwear received in loose form into unit containers, together with labelling, affixing of MRP, logo and bar code, amounted to manufacture under the amended definition in section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and whether duty was payable only on goods already received in unit containers.

Analysis: The amended definition of manufacture covers packing or repacking of specified goods in a unit container, labelling or relabelling of containers, declaration or alteration of retail sale price, and any other treatment on the goods to render them marketable. On the facts admitted by the assessee and supported by the statements relied upon by the department, loose footwear was received and thereafter packed in unit boxes after treatment and marking. Such activity squarely fell within the amended definition and attracted levy of duty. The cited decisions did not assist because they did not deal with packing of loose goods into unit containers as found here. At the same time, where footwear had already been received packed in unit containers and only labels, MRP or bar codes were affixed, the matter required proof and consideration for abatements.

Conclusion: The activity amounted to manufacture for goods packed from loose receipt into unit containers, and duty liability was upheld. Relief was confined to goods proved to have been received already packed in unit containers, in respect of which abatements, if any, were to be granted by the Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The levy of duty was sustained in principle, but the matter was sent back for limited verification of abatements on the basis of proof regarding pre-packed unit containers.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the amended section 2(f), packing or repacking of specified goods in unit containers, together with labelling and MRP-related treatment of loose goods, constitutes manufacture and attracts central excise duty.

---