Reracking branded talc into ready-to-use packs was prima facie manufacture, with extended limitation and partial pre-deposit directed.

Repacking talc powder into 1 kg branded consumer packs with product literature, batch details, manufacturing date and usage instructions was prima facie treated as manufacture because the processed product was marketed as a ready-to-use waterproofing admixture with a distinct name, character and use, falling under Chapter Heading 38244010 rather than mere repacking. The discrepancy between the earlier departmental letter stating that packing, repacking and relabelling was not manufacture and the retail packs showing a manufacturing date was prima facie viewed as misdeclaration, supporting invocation of the extended period of limitation. In view of these findings, complete waiver was declined and only partial pre-deposit relief was granted, with recovery of the balance stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether repacking of talc powder into 1 kg packs with the brand name and product literature as "Sika Noleek" amounted to manufacture; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was prima facie attracted; and (iii) what pre-deposit, if any, should be directed.

Issue (i): whether repacking of talc powder into 1 kg packs with the brand name and product literature as "Sika Noleek" amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: The product was found to be marketed as a ready-to-use waterproofing admixture for concrete and mortar, with consumer packs, batch details, manufacturing date and usage instructions. On that basis, the process was treated as resulting in a commercially distinct product with a different name, character and use, and was prima facie viewed as falling under Chapter Heading 38244010 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 rather than being mere repacking of talc powder.

Conclusion: The process was held to be prima facie manufacture.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation was prima facie attracted.

Analysis: The letter sent to the department had stated that packing, repacking and relabelling of talc was not manufacture, while the retail packs carried a manufacturing date. The discrepancy was treated as prima facie misdeclaration, supporting invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was held to be prima facie applicable.

Issue (iii): what pre-deposit, if any, should be directed.

Analysis: In view of the prima facie finding on manufacture and limitation, complete waiver was declined. At the same time, the appellant was granted partial relief by directing a limited pre-deposit and staying recovery of the balance pending the appeal.

Conclusion: Partial pre-deposit relief was granted.

Final Conclusion: The stay application was disposed of by directing a limited pre-deposit and granting waiver and stay for the remaining demand, penalty and interest.

---