Repacking and relabelling of cleaning preparations can amount to manufacture, while penalty law cannot operate retrospectively.

Repacking, filtering and relabelling of bulk cleaning preparations into retail packs was treated as manufacture because the products acquired distinct commercial names, character and use, supporting classification under heading 3402.90. The discussion also notes that the extended limitation period can be invoked where the assessee's disclosure does not reveal the full nature of the finished goods, their market identity and end use. On penalty, section 11AC is stated to apply only from its commencement date and cannot be used retrospectively for the entire disputed period; the penalty issue therefore required fresh quantification under the applicable pre- and post-commencement provisions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the processes of filtering, repacking and relabelling of the goods resulted in manufacture and justified classification under heading 3402.90; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue; (iii) Whether penalty under section 11AC could be imposed for the entire period in dispute.

Issue (i): Whether the processes of filtering, repacking and relabelling of the goods resulted in manufacture and justified classification under heading 3402.90.

Analysis: The goods were marketed as tape head cleaner, recording head cleaner, degreasing and cleansing fluid, and switch cleaning oil, and were packed for specific commercial use. The process undertaken gave the products distinct names, character and use from the bulk raw materials. The Tribunal also relied on the statutory change under Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 34 and the treatment of cleaning preparations as classifiable under heading 3402.90.

Conclusion: The activity amounted to manufacture and the goods were correctly classified under heading 3402.90, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was available to the Revenue.

Analysis: The letter relied upon by the assessee did not disclose the full factual position, including the nature of the finished products, their different market names, packaging and end use. The Department was therefore not fully informed of the actual activity undertaken.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty under section 11AC could be imposed for the entire period in dispute.

Analysis: Section 11AC came into force on 28-9-1996 and could not apply retrospectively. The duty demand covered periods both before and after that date, and no segregation of the duty attributable to each period was available.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 11AC for the entire period could not be sustained, and the matter was remitted for fresh quantification under the correct penalty provisions.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and the finding on limitation were sustained, but the penalty aspect was set aside and remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the applicable pre- and post-28-9-1996 penalty provisions.

Ratio Decidendi: Repacking and relabelling of bulk cleaning preparations into smaller retail packs, where the goods acquire a distinct commercial identity, amount to manufacture, while penalty provisions cannot be applied retrospectively beyond their commencement date.

---