Free trade zone manufacturing: processing and marketability sustained exemption, while duty, penalty and interest demands failed.

Processes in a free trade zone involving testing, filling, re-packing, labelling, cellophaning, assembling and cartonisation were treated as manufacture because they produced a commercially marketable product for the zone-based scheme, so exemption for DTA clearances could not be denied on a no-manufacture argument. The proposed duty demand was not sustainable under the Central Excise Act once manufacture was accepted, and it could not be reshaped into a Customs demand because the notice did not properly frame customs liability and the valuation basis was not legally supportable. Penalty and interest tied to the same demand were also set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the processes undertaken in the free trade zone amounted to manufacture for the purpose of the excise exemption and DTA clearances; whether the duty demand could be sustained under the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act; and whether the penalty and interest could be upheld.

Issue (i): Whether the processes undertaken in the free trade zone amounted to manufacture for the purpose of the excise exemption and DTA clearances.

Analysis: The imported goods were subjected to testing, filling, re-packing, labeling, cellophaning, assembling and cartonisation. On the facts, these operations were treated as resulting in a commercially marketable product and as manufacture for the zone-based scheme. The view that manufacture in such units should not be confined narrowly to section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was reinforced by the departmental circular and the zone permissions.

Conclusion: The processes were held to amount to manufacture, and the exemption linked to the zone clearances could not be denied on the ground that no manufacture had taken place.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand could be sustained under the Central Excise Act or the Customs Act.

Analysis: The demand under the Central Excise Act could not survive once the foundation of non-manufacture was rejected. The Tribunal further held that the order could not be converted into a Customs demand, because the notice did not contain a proper customs demand and the valuation adopted on the basis of domestic sale value was not sustainable under customs law. The reasoning under Notification No. 133/94-Cus. did not justify the impugned levy as framed.

Conclusion: The duty demand was unsustainable both under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and under the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (iii): Whether the penalty and interest could be upheld.

Analysis: Penalty under Rule 173Q and Section 11AC could not stand when the duty demand itself failed, and the invocation of penal provisions was also found to be legally untenable on the facts and on the framing of the notice. Interest linked to the same demand likewise could not be maintained.

Conclusion: The penalty and interest were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was held unsustainable in law and on merits, and the appellants obtained complete relief against the duty, penalty and interest demands.

Ratio Decidendi: In zone-based clearance disputes, where the factual operations constitute manufacture and the demand is not properly founded in the notice or in the applicable fiscal regime, the levy and consequential penalty cannot be sustained.

---