Affixing MRP on imported electrical appliances under Third Schedule constitutes manufacture, liable for excise duty under Section 2(f)(iii)

CESTAT New Delhi held that affixing MRP on imported electrical appliances covered under Third Schedule constitutes manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii), making goods liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on customs duty paid during import, following Delhi HC precedent in Global Ceramics case. Seizure and confiscation of goods was deemed unjustified as proper records were maintained. Extended limitation period was not applicable due to absence of willful suppression or misstatement of facts. While excise duty and interest were confirmed for normal period (March 2015 to October 2016), penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Matter remanded for duty computation and CENVAT credit determination.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered by the Tribunal were:

• Whether the alteration of MRP on the imported goods amounted to 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, thereby making the goods liable for excise duty.
• The eligibility of the appellant to claim CENVAT Credit on the duty paid at the time of importation of goods.
• The legality of the seizure and confiscation of goods found at the appellant's premises.
• The applicability of the extended period of limitation under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
• The imposition of penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, on the appellant and its Director, respectively.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Manufacture under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act

The Tribunal examined whether the activity of altering the MRP constituted 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act. The goods in question were covered under the Third Schedule, and the appellant admitted to affixing MRP stickers on the goods. The Tribunal referenced the clear language of Section 2(f)(iii), which includes processes such as packing, repacking, labeling, or altering the retail sale price as 'manufacture'. The Tribunal cited precedents such as Komatsu India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.EX., Nagpur, affirming that such activities constitute 'deemed manufacture' and are liable for excise duty.

Eligibility to CENVAT Credit

The Tribunal addressed whether the appellant could claim CENVAT Credit for the duty paid at import. The denial of credit was based on claims made beyond the prescribed time limit. However, the Tribunal noted the decision in Global Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner Central Excise, Nagpur, which held that amendments prescribing time limits for CENVAT Credit claims do not apply retroactively. The Tribunal found that for imports before the amendment date, the appellant was eligible for credit. For imports after the amendment, the time limit applied, rendering some claims time-barred.

Seizure and Confiscation of Goods

The Tribunal considered whether the goods seized were liable for confiscation. It reiterated the principle that excise duty is payable upon removal of goods from the premises, not merely upon manufacture. Citing precedents like Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd vs. Union of India, the Tribunal concluded that goods recorded in the books and not removed from the premises were not subject to seizure or confiscation.

Extended Period of Limitation

The Tribunal examined the invocation of the extended period under Section 11A(4). It found no evidence of willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the appellant, who was unaware that their activities constituted manufacture. Citing Collector of Central Excise vs. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, the Tribunal emphasized that the extended period requires proof of deliberate default, which was absent. Thus, the demand was justified only for the normal period.

Imposition of Penalties

The Tribunal addressed penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26. Since the extended period was not applicable, penalties under Section 11AC were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that penalties under Rule 26 require goods to be liable for confiscation, which was not the case here. Thus, penalties on both the company and its Director were deemed unwarranted.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held:

• The activity of affixing MRP on imported goods is 'manufacture' under Section 2(f)(iii) and subject to excise duty.
• The appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit for imports prior to the amendment date, but claims post-amendment are time-barred.
• The seizure and confiscation of goods were unjustified as duty is payable upon removal, not manufacture.
• The extended period of limitation was not applicable due to lack of willful default.
• Penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were not sustainable.

The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for recalculating duty liability and CENVAT Credit entitlement, partially allowing the appeals.

---