Tribunal rules bar codes not manufacturing, grants relief to assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals and granted relief to the assessee, holding that affixing bar codes on goods did not amount to manufacturing under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that such activity did not render the products marketable and aligned with the precedent set in Rafique Mallick's case. As a result, the bank guarantees held by the assessee were released, highlighting the importance of adherence to legal precedents in swift justice delivery.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Whether affixing a bar code on goods received from suppliers amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Affixing Bar Code - Manufacturing Activity
The central issue in the appeals was whether affixing bar codes on footwear received from suppliers constitutes manufacturing under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority initially held that this activity amounted to manufacture, while subsequent orders took a contrary view, leading to the appeals.

Issue 2: Department's Argument
The Department argued that the suppliers delivered footwear in specially designed cardboard boxes as per the assessee's specifications. They contended that affixing bar codes and declaring prices on the boxes constituted a declaration made by the assessee, falling under the definition of manufacture in Section 2(f)(iii).

Issue 3: Assessee's Defense
The assessee's counsel countered that affixing bar codes did not amount to re-labeling or rendering the product marketable. They emphasized that the suppliers provided fully packed footwear with MRP and codes, and the assessee only affixed bar codes before distribution, not engaging in labeling or repacking activities.

Issue 4: Tribunal's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 2(f)(iii), which include labeling or re-labeling to render products marketable. It noted that the assessee did not engage in packing, repacking, or adopting treatments to make the goods marketable. Affixing bar codes did not provide additional information to customers and did not alter the marketability of the footwear.

Issue 5: Precedent and Judgment
The Tribunal referenced a judgment in Rafique Mallick's case, where similar activities were held not to constitute manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii). The Tribunal upheld the order in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the affixation of bar codes did not fall within the ambit of manufacturing activities outlined in the Act.

Issue 6: Relief Granted
The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee and rejected those by the Revenue. It directed the release of bank guarantees held by the assessee, as affixing bar codes was not deemed manufacturing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of quick justice and adherence to binding precedents in deciding such matters.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis and interpretation of Section 2(f)(iii) led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and the release of bank guarantees to the assessee. The judgment clarified that affixing bar codes on goods did not constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, providing relief to the assessee in the appeals.

---