Repacking and relabelling of returned goods did not justify enhanced excise duty where no new commodity emerged.

Repacking and relabelling of returned goods did not result in a new and distinct commodity, so the duty demand was not justified. Although the Chapter Note to Chapter 29 treated repacking and relabelling as manufacture, the Tribunal accepted that the practical effect of demanding the enhanced duty would be to allow the original suppliers a higher Modvat credit than the duty actually suffered. It found that the Department was not prejudiced at the stage of original supply and upheld the order setting aside the demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty was payable on goods returned by customers and subsequently repacked and relabelled before being cleared, and whether Rule 57F(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 required duty payment equivalent to the credit originally availed.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had found the process undertaken to be repacking and relabelling of the goods and that no new and distinct commodity emerged. It was also noticed that, although Chapter Note to Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 treated repacking and relabelling as manufacture, the practical consequence of demanding the enhanced duty was that the original suppliers would become eligible for a higher credit than the duty actually suffered. The Tribunal accepted the appellate finding that the demand was not justified and observed that the Department was not prejudiced in respect of the eligible Modvat credit at the stage of original supply.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order setting aside the demand was upheld and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

---