Supreme Court: Import of Medicines Not 'Manufacture' under Excise Act

The Supreme Court determined that the import of medicines Eprex and Topamac did not qualify as 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Repacking into retail packs was deemed essential for marketability, and activities like labelling and repacking were not sufficient to attract duty. The Court dismissed appeals related to imported items under Chapters 18 and 19, as the evidence of repacking from bulk to retail packs was lacking. Imported products ready for sale in retail packs without further repacking did not meet the criteria for 'manufacture' as outlined in the Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the import of two particular medicines, Eprex and Topamac, falls under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
2. Interpretation of Note 5 Chapter 30 regarding the meaning of 'manufacture' in relation to products of Heading No. 30.03.
3. Determination of 'manufacture' in the context of repacking from bulk packs to retail packs for marketability.
4. Applicability of Note 3 to Chapter 18 and Chapter 19 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 in extending the meaning of manufacture to labelling, relabelling, and repacking activities.
5. Examination of whether imported products were ready for sale to consumers in retail packs or required further repacking activities to qualify as 'manufacture.'

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court considered the import of Eprex and Topamac under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The question revolved around whether these medicines were manufactured to attract duty under the Act.
2. Note 5 Chapter 30 was interpreted to extend the meaning of 'manufacturers' by including activities like converting powder into tablets, labelling containers for consumers, and repacking for marketability. The Tribunal emphasized that repacking from bulk packs to retail packs was necessary for an activity to be classified as 'manufacture.'
3. The appellant argued that repacking occurred after importation, with medicines like Eprex repacked into thermocole boxes and Topamac tablets placed in cardboard boxes for marketing. However, the Court highlighted that repacking into "retail packs" was essential for direct marketability to consumers, which lacked evidence in this case.
4. In the context of Note 3 to Chapter 18 and Chapter 19, the Court dismissed appeals related to imported items under these chapters. The legal fiction extending 'manufacture' to labelling, relabelling, and repacking activities was not found applicable in the absence of evidence of repacking from bulk to retail packs.
5. Additionally, in cases involving imported ready-to-market retail packs, where stickers were affixed with necessary information, the Court noted that no further repacking activities were undertaken by the appellants. As a result, the appeals were dismissed without costs, as the activities did not align with the extended meaning of 'manufacture' as outlined in the relevant chapters of the Act.

---