TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Repacking products isn't manufacturing if no new product is created. Tribunal decision upheld. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI Versus AERO PACK PRODUCTS</h3> The Supreme Court held that repacking a product from bulk to consumer form does not constitute manufacturing as there is no creation of a new product, ... Manufacture – Section 2(f) of central excise act, 1944 - Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that repacking of the product from bulk to small containers does not amount to manufacture - Out of the six samples received, three are in bottles and three are in original Aerosol Containers. Both types of samples are composed of mixtures of Organic chemicals including volatile Organic Solvents. As seen from the manufacturer’s letter that Monocoat imported in bulk in drums, are packed in Aerosol Containers alongwith propellant gas. The basic composition and use of the original material has not changed and no new product has come into existence, only the mode of application has been changed – tribunal order upheld – manufacturer entitled to get refund of amount paid under protest. Issues:Whether repacking from bulk to consumer form constitutes manufacture.Analysis:The Supreme Court judgment involved the question of whether repacking a product from bulk to a form suitable for consumers constitutes manufacturing. The Deputy Chief Chemist's report stated that the composition of the product remained the same before and after repacking, indicating that no new product was created. The report highlighted that the basic composition and use of the original material did not change, only the mode of application was altered. The show cause notice did not allege any value addition to the product, focusing solely on whether the repacking activity amounted to manufacturing.The Tribunal, as a fact-finding body, concluded that repacking the product did not qualify as manufacturing. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that the finding was based on facts and did not warrant interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with no costs imposed on either party. Additionally, the judgment ordered the refund of duty paid under protest to the respondent.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
