Deemed manufacture and clandestine clearance findings fail where statutory conditions and defence explanations are not properly examined.

Re-bottling and labelling imported liquid bromine into smaller retail packs was examined against the deeming fiction in note 9 to chapter 28 and section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, but the order did not clearly identify which statutory condition was satisfied on the proved facts, so the finding of deemed manufacture could not stand and required fresh determination. Allegations of short-payment and clandestine clearance were also found unsustainable because the defence explanations and transactional context were not properly considered; the consequential confiscation and penalty findings therefore also had to be reconsidered. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether re-bottling and labelling of imported liquid bromine into smaller retail packs amounted to deemed manufacture under the relevant chapter note and attracted central excise duty; (ii) whether the demand, confiscation and penalty in respect of alleged short-payment and clandestine clearance of the second product could stand when the defence explanations were not properly considered.

Issue (i): whether re-bottling and labelling of imported liquid bromine into smaller retail packs amounted to deemed manufacture under the relevant chapter note and attracted central excise duty.

Analysis: The activity had to be tested against the specific deeming provision in note 9 to chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule and section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The order under challenge did not clearly record findings as to which of the statutory alternatives was actually satisfied on the proved facts. The reasoning also did not adequately connect the process undertaken with the precise statutory threshold for deemed manufacture.

Conclusion: The finding on deemed manufacture could not be sustained and required fresh determination.

Issue (ii): whether the demand, confiscation and penalty in respect of alleged short-payment and clandestine clearance of the second product could stand when the defence explanations were not properly considered.

Analysis: Clandestine clearance can be inferred only from circumstances, and the adjudicating authority was required to deal with the explanations offered by the assessee and examine the transactional context. The impugned order fastened liability by assumptions without adequate consideration of the defence material, and the same defect affected the consequential confiscation and penalty findings.

Conclusion: The findings on short-payment, clandestine removal, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable and had to be reconsidered.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded to the adjudicating authorities for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand based on deemed manufacture or clandestine clearance cannot be sustained unless the authority records clear, fact-based findings showing satisfaction of the exact statutory conditions and fairly considers the assessee's defence.

---