Chemical transfer not "manufacture" under Central Excise Act. Labeling crucial.

The Tribunal held that transferring chemicals from a tanker-lorry to small containers did not amount to "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act. The labeling on the containers supported this finding, indicating no repacking from a bulk pack. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the Tribunal concluded that mere packing or relabeling without repacking did not meet the threshold for "manufacture." Consequently, the commodity was deemed not dutiable, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal as the activity did not fulfill the criteria for "manufacture" under the Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of transferring chemicals from tanker-lorry to small containers amounts to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act by virtue of Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the CETA Schedule.

Analysis:
1. The appeal questioned whether the activity of packing chemicals from a tanker-lorry into barrels and carboys constituted "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act. The Revenue argued that this activity fell under Chapter Note 11, making it subject to excise duty. However, the respondents contended that there was no repacking involved as per the Chapter Note. Citing relevant case law, the respondents argued their case.

2. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and case law, found no sustainable ground in the Revenue's appeal. It was concluded that the transfer of chemicals from the tanker-lorry to small containers did not constitute repacking from a bulk pack. The labeling of chemicals on the containers further supported this finding. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, it was established that mere packing or relabeling without repacking from a bulk pack did not amount to "manufacture."

3. As a result, the subject commodity was deemed not dutiable, rendering other issues raised in the appeal irrelevant. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the finding that the activity did not meet the criteria for "manufacture" under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, case law references, and the ultimate decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI regarding the issue of whether the activity of transferring chemicals constituted "manufacture" for the purpose of excise duty.

---