Tribunal rules activities not "manufacture" under Excise Act, criticizes lack of cross-examination.

The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, ruling that their activities did not amount to "manufacture" under the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal criticized the reliance on statements without allowing cross-examination, deeming it a violation of natural justice. The applicability of certain rules was not explicitly addressed, but the Tribunal highlighted non-compliance with remand directions and principles of natural justice, ultimately setting aside the order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision was pronounced on 28.12.2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the activities undertaken by the appellants amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act.
2. Validity of the demand based on statements without granting the right to cross-examine.
3. Applicability of the Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977, and the Standard Weights and Measures Act, 1976.
4. Compliance with the Tribunal's remand directions and principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the activities undertaken by the appellants amount to "manufacture" under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act:
The appellants argued that their activities, which include repacking and relabeling of spare parts for motor vehicles, do not constitute manufacturing as per Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act. They contended that these actions were aimed at logistical convenience and inventory management rather than adding value to make the goods marketable. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority failed to verify the nature of the activities despite having ample time before the appellants shifted their premises. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the department's claim that the activities amounted to manufacture was not substantiated.

2. Validity of the demand based on statements without granting the right to cross-examine:
The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority relied heavily on statements from witnesses without allowing the appellants to cross-examine them, despite clear remand instructions to do so. The Tribunal cited several cases, including J&K Cigarettes Limited v. Collector of Central Excise and CCE, Delhi v. Vishnu and Co. Pvt Ltd., which established that statements under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act are unreliable unless cross-examination is afforded. The refusal to grant cross-examination was deemed a violation of natural justice, rendering the order invalid.

3. Applicability of the Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977, and the Standard Weights and Measures Act, 1976:
The appellants argued that the provisions of the Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977, and the Standard Weights and Measures Act, 1976, do not apply to their case as the spares were sold to industrial or institutional consumers. Consequently, Section 4A of the Excise Act, which pertains to MRP-based assessment, would also not apply. The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on this issue but noted the appellants' contention as part of their broader argument against the demand.

4. Compliance with the Tribunal's remand directions and principles of natural justice:
The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority failed to comply with the remand directions to verify the appellants' activities and grant the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Tribunal highlighted that the adjudicating authority's actions, including the refusal to conduct verification and denial of cross-examination, were unjustified and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced the case of Kiran Overseas v. Collector of Customs, where a similar refusal led to the setting aside of the order on technical grounds without a further remand.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the adjudicating authority's order was unsustainable due to non-compliance with remand instructions and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law, emphasizing that further remand would serve no purpose and only prolong the appellants' agony. The appeal was thus allowed, and the order pronounced in court on 28.12.2018.

---