Activity of refilling carbon-di-oxide gas into cylinders not 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 10

The Appellate Tribunal held that refilling carbon-di-oxide gas from tankers into cylinders does not amount to 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 as it does not involve re-packing from bulk to retail packs or any treatment to render the product marketable. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision, ruling in favor of the appellants, stating that their activity falls outside the scope of Chapter Note 10.

---

---

Issues:
Whether refilling carbon-di-oxide gas from tankers into cylinders amounts to manufacture under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28.

Analysis:
The appellants in this case refill carbon-di-oxide gas from tankers into cylinders after purchasing it and paying appropriate excise duty. The Original Authority did not provide a reasoned Order but communicated through a letter that such activity amounts to 'manufacture.' The lower Appellate Authority, however, decided against the appellants, stating that the activities fall within the ambit of 'any other treatment so as to render the product marketable.' The Appellate Tribunal noted that Chapter Note 10 includes "labelling or re-labelling" accompanied by re-packing from bulk pack to retail pack or adopting any other treatment to make the product marketable. The authorities did not examine whether the appellants engaged in labelling or re-labelling. The Tribunal found that the appellants only refill carbon-di-oxide from tankers to cylinders, a process not considered re-packing from bulk to retail packs as per precedent. The Tribunal emphasized that the activity of refilling cylinders does not constitute 'any other treatment to render the product marketable' as required by Chapter Note 10.

The Tribunal concluded that regardless of whether the appellants engaged in labelling or re-labelling, since they did not re-pack from bulk to retail packs or adopt any other treatment as mandated by Chapter Note 10, their activity falls outside its purview. The Tribunal held that the impugned Order was not sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

---