Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether relabelling and repacking of returned peanut butter goods amounted to manufacture under Chapter Note 7 of Chapter 21, and whether the duty demand and penalty were sustainable.
Analysis: Chapter Note 7 treats labelling or re-labelling of containers, repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, or any other treatment adopted to render the product marketable to the consumer as manufacture. The returned goods in the present case had already been cleared on payment of duty and were already marketable when they re-entered the factory. The assessee merely relabelled the goods and, in some cases, repacked them in larger packs. These activities did not amount to a fresh process undertaken to render the goods marketable within the meaning of the Note. The order under challenge had also followed an earlier appellate order in a similar matter, which had attained finality.
Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 7, and the demand of duty and penalty were not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the order setting aside the demand and penalty was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Relabelling or repacking of goods that were already marketable and had earlier been cleared on duty does not constitute manufacture unless the process is undertaken to render the goods marketable to the consumer within the meaning of the relevant chapter note.