2018 (1) TMI 109 - HC - Central Excise

Court rules affixing brand names on footwear not 'manufacture' under Central Excise Act.

The Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant-revenue challenging the Central Excise duty on affixing brand names on footwear. It held that the activity ... Manufacture - activity of taking out footwear in finished form from the boxes bearing M.R.P. and labelling the same with their brand names “Metro” and “Mochi” and of putting them into the same boxes - Held that: - As admittedly, the footwear in finished form was received by the respondent, it is impossible to say that in the form in which the footwear was received, it could not be marketed or sold in open market by the respondent-assessee. Even without carrying out the activity of putting its brand name, the final product namely the footwear could have been marketed and sold to the consumers. Even assuming that one or two brand names affixed by the respondent are very popular, by affixing the brand name, at highest the value of the footwear will increase - on plain reading of subclause( iii) of clause (f) of Section 2, the activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. On plain reading of subclause( iii) of clause (f) of Section 2, the activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. Appeal dismissed. Issues:Challenge to judgment by appellant-revenue regarding Central Excise duty on manufacturing activity.Analysis:The dispute in this case revolves around a show cause notice issued to the respondent-assessee regarding the manufacturing activity of affixing brand names on footwear received from karigars. The appellant-revenue contended that this activity falls under the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, rendering it liable for duty. The respondent-assessee argued that merely affixing brand names does not constitute manufacture as defined in the Act. The Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, leading to the current challenge.The key contention of the appellant-revenue was that affixing brand names on the footwear made it marketable to consumers, thus falling under the definition of manufacture. The Tribunal's alleged oversight of this aspect was highlighted. However, the respondent-assessee maintained that the activity did not transform the goods into a new product. Both parties cited various legal precedents to support their arguments, emphasizing the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the Act.The Court analyzed the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, particularly sub-clause (iii), which includes processes like labeling to render goods marketable. It was noted that the disputed activity did not involve changing the boxes or labeling them, but only affixing brand names on the footwear. The Court framed a question of law to determine whether this activity constituted manufacture. The judgment emphasized that the footwear was already marketable without the brand names and that affixing them did not significantly alter the product's marketability.In reviewing relevant legal precedents, the Court differentiated cases where repacking or relabeling significantly altered the product for marketing purposes. It was clarified that merely affixing brand names, as in the present case, did not amount to manufacturing under the Act. The Court concluded that the respondent-assessee's activity did not make the goods more marketable and upheld the Tribunal's decision. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, with no costs awarded.This detailed analysis of the legal issues involved in the judgment highlights the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act and the application of precedents to determine the scope of manufacturing activities subject to duty.