2014 (2) TMI 720 - AT - Central Excise

Imported VCD/DVD/Multi Player Sticker Affixing Not 'Manufacture' under Central Excise Act

M/s BELTEK (INDIA) LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Tribunal held that affixing warranty and chassis number stickers on imported VCD/DVD/Multi players did not amount to 'manufacture' under the Central ... Manufacture - Labeling of imported good - Whether activities such as affixing of warranty stickers and chassis number stickers of the fully finished imported already branded VCD/DVD/Multi players of Heading 85.21 amounts to manufacture or not in terms of Section 2 (f) (iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Invocation of extended period - Held that:- Only requirement of making these goods as manufactured in terms of section 2f(ii) is that labeling of containers amounts to manufacture but in the case of appellants labeling / branding is already done at the time of import and sticker of MRP are also affixed at that time. It is further noticed that it is not the case of the department that the appellants are packing or repacking. We have also examined that it is not the case of the department that the import of the goods were in bulk and the same had been put in some containers. We have also examined the aspect of 'that any other treatment' and find that has to be something as defined in section 2f. Once the goods at the time of clearance at the Customs department have undergone requirement of goods manufactured with MRP price having been affixed and goods having been duly cleared by the customs, there is no cause for asking duty on the same product merely because sticker of warranty and the chassis number have been pasted on these containers - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Whether the processes undertaken by the party amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.- Whether affixing warranty stickers and chassis number stickers on imported VCD/DVD/Multi players constitutes manufacture as per Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:1. The appeal was against an order confirming a demand on the clearance of DVD/VCD Players and Multiplayers, including seizure and redemption fine. The Commissioner held that certain processes undertaken by the party constituted manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944.2. The key issue was whether the processes carried out by the party, such as opening packages, quality checks, branding, and repacking, amounted to manufacture. The Commissioner analyzed the definition of 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, particularly focusing on the amendment in 2003.3. The Commissioner concluded that the imported DVD/VCD Players and Multiplayers, subject to specific processes in the factory, fell under the definition of 'manufacture' as per the Act, considering the branding and additional features added to the products.4. The party imported goods with their brand name 'Beltek' already affixed, meeting statutory requirements. The issue revolved around whether affixing warranty stickers and chassis number stickers on these imported products constituted manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act.5. The Appellants argued that the goods were already marketable before affixing these stickers, citing precedents where labeling or relabeling must be accompanied by other treatments to render goods marketable. They emphasized that the goods were not repacked or relabeled by them.6. The Tribunal examined the contentions and Commissioner's findings, noting that the goods were already branded and cleared by Customs with necessary details. The Tribunal analyzed the Act's provisions on manufacture and labeling, finding no cause to impose duty based solely on affixing warranty and chassis number stickers.7. Considering precedents and the requirement for goods to be marketable even before labeling, the Tribunal held that the activity of affixing warranty and chassis number stickers did not amount to manufacture, as the goods were already packed and labeled at the import stage.8. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the department's case, setting aside the Commissioner's finding and allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the interpretation of the Central Excise Act, the application of precedents, and the specific circumstances determining whether certain processes constitute 'manufacture' under the law.