Deemed manufacture under excise law requires both relabelling and repacking to retail packs; cumulative conditions were not met.

Labelling or re-labelling amounts to deemed manufacture only when the cumulative statutory condition of repacking from bulk to retail packs is also met under the relevant chapter notes. The Court read the expressions used in the Chapter Notes as requiring both elements, not either one alone. On the facts, one category of goods was repacked only for industrial wholesale supply and not into retail packs, while the other was relabelled without any repacking. The statutory requirements for manufacture were therefore not satisfied, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking from bulk to retail packs amounted to manufacture under Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 and Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis: The chapter notes used both the expressions "or" and "and" in a manner that showed a legislative intent that labelling or re-labelling would amount to manufacture only when the further condition of repacking from bulk to retail packs was also satisfied. The same structure applied to the deeming fiction concerning products made marketable to consumers. On the facts, the goods in one category were repacked only for supply to industrial consumers on wholesale basis and not into retail packs, while in the other category there was relabelling but no repacking at all.

Conclusion: The conditions for deemed manufacture were not satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the processes carried out on the products did not meet the cumulative statutory requirements for manufacture under the relevant chapter notes.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a deeming provision for manufacture requires labelling or re-labelling and repacking to retail packs, the conditions are cumulative and cannot be read disjunctively.

---