TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether refilling liquid oxygen and liquid argon from bulk containers into retail cylinders, with attendant labeling and conversion into gaseous form, amounted to manufacture under Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.
Issue (i): Whether refilling liquid oxygen and liquid argon from bulk containers into retail cylinders, with attendant labeling and conversion into gaseous form, amounted to manufacture under Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 read with section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Analysis: The deeming fiction in Chapter Note 9 applies only where the stipulated treatment answers the statutory description of manufacture. Refilling from tanker or bulk storage into returnable cylinders was held not to be repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, and mere transfer from one container to another does not by itself satisfy the note. The labeling on cylinders was for identification and compliance purposes and did not render the gas marketable in the sense required by the note. The mixing of argon and carbon dioxide did not produce a new commodity with a distinct character, and the gases retained their individual properties. The conversion of liquid gas into gaseous form was likewise found not to bring into existence a new marketable product. The prior decisions in the assessee's own matters and the approved line of authority were applied to the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture and the issue is answered in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation and the extended period could be invoked.
Analysis: The notice covered an extended period, but the department had prior knowledge of the activity, similar disputes had earlier been litigated, and the conduct involved an interpretational dispute rather than any proved suppression, fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement. In these circumstances, the statutory requirements for invoking the extended period were not met.
Conclusion: The extended period could not be invoked and the limitation issue is answered in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand, penalty, and confiscation based on the impugned order could not be sustained, and the assessee obtained full relief.
Ratio Decidendi: For Chapter Note 9 to Chapter 28 to apply, the process must actually render the product marketable in the statutory sense or create a new marketable product; mere transfer between containers, identification labeling, or mixing of gases that retain their individual character does not constitute manufacture, and the extended limitation period is unavailable absent legally established suppression or other specified mens rea.
TaxTMI 
