Appeal allowed, duty demand set aside for labeling plastic bottles not constituting manufacturing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s. Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, setting aside the demand for duty based on the extended period under Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner's argument that labeling plastic bottles constituted manufacturing was rejected, as labeling or re-labeling was not explicitly mentioned under Chapter 34 of the tariff during the relevant period. The Tribunal concluded that such activities were not intended to be considered as manufacturing at that time, leading to the decision that duty was not leviable and penalties were not imposable.

---

---

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term 'manufacture' under Chapter 34 of the tariff
2. Whether labeling or re-labeling of containers amounts to manufacture
3. Applicability of the extended period under Section 11A of the Act

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of M/s. Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, setting aside the demand for duty based on the extended period under Section 11A of the Act. The Commissioner filed for rectification, arguing that part of the clearance of the product was within the six-month limit. The Tribunal recalled the order for further hearing.

2. The case involved the process of labeling plastic bottles containing detergent by Nilgiri. The Commissioner considered this process as manufacturing under Note 6 to Chapter 34 of the tariff. The Tribunal analyzed similar notes in other chapters and found that labeling or re-labeling was not explicitly mentioned under Chapter 34 at the relevant time. The absence of specific language led to the conclusion that such activities were not intended to be deemed as manufacturing during that period.

3. The Departmental Representative argued that labeling the product with a brand name made it marketable, thereby falling under 'any other treatment rendering the product marketable to the consumer.' However, the Tribunal noted the absence of the phrase 'labeling or re-labeling' in Chapter 37 and other relevant chapters. This absence, along with the specific inclusion of labeling in other chapters, indicated that labeling was not considered manufacturing at the time. Therefore, the Tribunal affirmed that the activity undertaken by the appellant did not amount to manufacture, leading to the conclusion that duty was not leviable, and penalties were not imposable.

---