2014 (5) TMI 493 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules repacking not manufacturing, appellant not liable for duty.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that repacking activities did not amount to manufacturing, thus dismissing duty demands and ... Duty demand - Repacking of goods - Held that:- appellant received the goods from their principal manufacturer for only repacking of the paints from retail packs to bulk packs. There is no evidence on record that the appellant has reprocessed the goods and having any facility at their unit for reprocessing of the same. In the absence of any evidence, merely on the basis of words 'sent for reprocessing' cannot be taken as evidence for ascertain the fact that the appellant has taken the goods for reprocessing of the goods. Therefore, it is held that the appellant has done only the repacking from retail packs to bulk packs of the impugned goods which does not amounts to manufacture during the impugned period. Therefore, the demand of duty is not sustainable, consequently, penalty is also not sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Duty demands on reprocessing activities2. Liability to pay duty on clearance of goods3. Reversal of credit on destroyed inputs4. Imposition of penaltiesAnalysis:Issue 1: Duty demands on reprocessing activitiesThe appellant was involved in repacking goods from retail to bulk packs as a job worker for a principal manufacturer. The Revenue alleged that this activity amounted to manufacturing final products, thus imposing duty demands on the appellant's clearance. The appellant argued that they only repacked the goods as per the manufacturer's instructions and did not engage in reprocessing. The Tribunal found no evidence of reprocessing by the appellant, concluding that repacking does not constitute manufacturing. Therefore, the demand for duty and penalties were deemed unsustainable.Issue 2: Liability to pay duty on clearance of goodsThe appellant received goods for repacking, not reprocessing, from the principal manufacturer. The Revenue contended that a memo from the manufacturer indicated reprocessing, making the appellant liable for duty payment. However, the Tribunal ruled that without concrete evidence of reprocessing, the appellant's repacking activity did not attract duty liability. The Tribunal held that the appellant's repacking did not amount to manufacturing during the period in question, leading to the dismissal of duty demands and penalties.Issue 3: Reversal of credit on destroyed inputsCertain inputs used by the appellant were destroyed in a flood and were cleared with duty payment based on transaction value. The Revenue insisted on reversing the entire credit taken on these inputs as they were not used in manufacturing. The Tribunal directed the appellant to reverse the credit on the destroyed inputs, considering that duty had already been paid on the transaction value. No penalties were imposed due to the absence of malicious intent in claiming credit on the destroyed inputs.Issue 4: Imposition of penaltiesThe Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not obligated to pay duty on repacking activities and should reverse the credit on destroyed inputs. Penalties were deemed unwarranted due to the absence of malicious intent. The appeals were disposed of in favor of the appellant, with duty demands, penalties, and credit reversal requirements being set aside.This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between repacking and reprocessing activities in determining duty liability, emphasizing the need for concrete evidence to support allegations of manufacturing activities.