Appellate Tribunal rules labeling imported medicines not repackaging, setting aside Revenue's allegations.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT ruled in favor of M/s. German Remedies Ltd., stating that their actions did not constitute repackaging from bulk to retail packs as alleged by the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Appellants' activities of labeling and displaying necessary information on imported medicines did not amount to repackaging under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The decision was supported by the lack of evidence provided by the Revenue and established legal precedent that mere labeling for legal compliance does not constitute manufacturing. As a result, the impugned Order was set aside, and the Appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act regarding labelling and repackaging of imported medicines.

Summary:
The Appeal filed by M/s. German Remedies Ltd. was heard by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi. The issue revolved around the labelling and repackaging of Somatosan and Fludara injections imported from a foreign supplier. The Appellants argued that their activities did not amount to repackaging from bulk to retail packs as they only displayed necessary information on the imported products. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the goods were indeed repacked based on the description in the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the Appellants had not engaged in repackaging the goods as alleged. They cited previous cases and circulars to support their decision, emphasizing that mere labelling or affixing stickers for legal compliance does not constitute manufacturing under Chapter 30 of the Tariff. Therefore, the impugned Order was set aside, and the Appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of M/s. German Remedies Ltd., stating that their actions did not amount to repackaging from bulk to retail packs as alleged by the Revenue. The decision was based on the lack of evidence presented by the Revenue to prove the repackaging claim, as well as the established legal precedent that labelling for legal requirements does not fall under the definition of manufacturing under Chapter 30 of the Tariff. The Tribunal referenced previous cases and a circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs to support their ruling, ultimately setting aside the impugned Order and allowing the Appeal filed by the Appellants.

---