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 the activity of packing rechargeable batteries with chargers in blister packs and labelling them as marketed products amounted to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and if not, whether the duty demand, interest and penalty could survive.
Analysis: The activity involved putting together already manufactured chargers and batteries and affixing labels for marketing. No new and distinct commercial commodity emerged, and the goods retained their essential character. The relevant test is whether the process brings into existence a new and marketable product with a distinct name, character and use, or falls within a statutory deeming provision. The goods in question were not shown to be covered by any Chapter Note or Section Note deeming such packing or labelling to be manufacture, and the processes in issue did not answer the statutory description of manufacture for the goods involved.
Conclusion: The activity did not amount to manufacture, and the duty demand was unsustainable; consequently, interest and penalty also could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeals were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere packing and labelling of already manufactured goods does not constitute manufacture unless a new marketable commodity emerges or the process is expressly deemed to be manufacture by the statute.