TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Duty-paid ammonia repacked from tankers into retail containers-whether Note 10 Ch. 28 treats it as 'manufacture' without labelling; duty set aside.</h1> Whether filling duty-paid ammonia from bulk tankers into smaller containers for retail sale constitutes 'manufacture' under Note 10 to Ch. 28 was the ... Scope and ambit of Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff - Manufacture - Legal Fiction - Chapter Notes - manufacturer of Ammonia on payment of Central Excise duty under Chapter sub-heading 2814.90 - retail/marketable packs for sale to consumers - HELD THAT:- In Note 10, labelling, re-labelling of the container along with repacking etc. are taken to form manufacturing process. The word labelling has got specific connotation in excise law. This can be seen from Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 (General Exemption No. 1) dealing with small scale exemption. The word labelling was used in that notification in the Explanation added to that notification. A reading of that Explanation shows that the labelling is used as synonymous to symbol, monogram, signature including the words or writing for the purpose of indicating a connection between the goods and the manufacturer. No such mark or monogram or label or other marking is affixed by the assessee in the instant case on the container in which Ammonia gas is filled. When the facts of this case are analysed in the light of the above understanding of note 10 to Chapter 28, we are clear in our mind that the activity undertaken by the assessee namely filling of Ammonia gas from bulk tankers into smaller containers will not amount to manufacturing process. Since the activity is not a manufacturing process, no duty liability under the Central Excise Act can be imposed on the assessee. Thus, we allow this appeal and set aside the order impugned herein with consequential relief, if any. Issues involved: Scope and ambit of Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff regarding the manufacturing process of distributing Anhydrous Ammonia and Ammonia in aqueous solution.Summary:The appellants were distributing Ammonia received in compressed form in tankers, off-loaded into cylinders for sale. A Show Cause Notice alleged manufacturing due to repacking Ammonia into retail packs. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the duty demand, noting the marking of cylinders with 'ASCO.' The appeal contended the cylinders were purchased and filled by M/s. ASCO Industrial Corporation, not manufactured by the appellants. The Appellate Commissioner upheld the decision without addressing the appellants' contentions.Note 10 to Chapter 28 states activities like labelling containers or repacking from bulk to retail packs amount to manufacture. The judgment analyzed the ingredients required for the manufacturing process under this Note. It was found that the appellants did not engage in labelling or re-labelling containers during the filling process, thus not meeting the criteria for manufacturing as per the Note.The department's argument regarding packing was refuted, citing a circular defining packing as containing pre-packed commodities with specific information, which did not apply to the appellants' case. The judgment clarified the specific connotation of 'labelling' in excise law and highlighted that no such labelling was done by the appellants on the containers.Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the activity of filling Ammonia gas into smaller containers did not amount to a manufacturing process. A similar demand in a different jurisdiction had been dropped, further supporting the appellants' case. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order with any consequential relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
