TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Rules Repacking /= Manufacture; Duty Demands Rejected</h1> <h3>CONYBIO HEALTHCARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI</h3> CONYBIO HEALTHCARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHENNAI - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 586 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Classification of imported goods under Chapter 61 or 62.2. Whether the activity of repacking imported goods amounts to 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 4.3. Application of extended period of limitation for demanding duty.4. Rejection of exemption Notifications and CENVAT credit of CVD.5. Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions and Board's Circular.Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of imported goods under Chapter 61 or 62The dispute revolves around the classification of imported goods under Chapter 61 or 62. The Commissioner classified the goods under these chapters and applied Chapter Note 4 to the activity undertaken by the appellants. The appellants contested this classification, arguing that certain items should have been classified under Chapter 63. The Commissioner held that the repacking of garments from bulk packs to retail packs for sale constituted 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 4, making the goods marketable to consumers.Issue 2: Repacking as 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 4The main issue is whether the repacking of imported goods amounts to 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 4. The Commissioner found that the appellants' activity of repacking garments in old-and-used cartons, along with printed packing material, rendered the goods marketable to consumers. This led to the imposition of duty and penalties. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this finding, noting that repacking alone does not constitute 'manufacture.' The Tribunal cited relevant case law to support its decision and emphasized that the goods were not directly marketable to consumers without further packaging by the distributors.Issue 3: Extended period of limitation for demanding dutyThe Commissioner invoked the extended period of limitation for demanding duty, alleging suppression of facts by the appellants to evade payment. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument and ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's decision.Issue 4: Rejection of exemption Notifications and CENVAT creditThe Commissioner rejected the appellants' claims for exemption Notifications and CENVAT credit of CVD. The Tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to support the Commissioner's decision and sided with the appellants on these issues.Issue 5: Comparison with previous Tribunal decisions and Board's CircularThe Tribunal considered previous Tribunal decisions cited by the Revenue but found them inconclusive in supporting the Revenue's case. Additionally, the Tribunal discussed a Board's Circular highlighting the individual nature of decisions regarding duty liability, but concluded that it did not support the Revenue's position.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal held that the activity of repacking the imported goods did not amount to 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 4, thereby rejecting the duty demands and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.
TaxTMI 