TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (1) TMI 240
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to NOCIL, since 1986 as per orders placed by NOCIL upon them. NOCIL required the said Agarwal Organics Pvt. Ltd. in accordance with their orders to deliver the goods in bulk packing i.e. carboys to the appellants whom they had engaged for repacking of the product in the packing material supplied to them by NOCIL. Accordingly, the said Agarwal Organics Pvt. Ltd. were packing the goods in carboys and sending them to the appellants in returnable containers on payment of duty on G.P. 1s i.e. gate passes as instructed by NOCIL. Full duty was paid by the said Agarwal Organics Pvt. Ltd. on the products on their "as-is-as were" conditions at the time of their removal from their factory in accordance with the settled law i.e. duty was to be paid o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter clearance of bulk packages from the factory, repacks item into smaller packages. There was no ground to circumventing the provisions of Notification No. 223/87 which came into effect 1-10-1987 as the appellants were already engaged in this job activity much prior to the notification and right from 1986. Neither the goods which were transferred to the appellants belonged to the appellants nor the packing materials which were supplied by NOCIL belonged to the appellants. 5. It was his submission that packing, refilling does not amount to `manufacture'. The finding that it is ancillary to the completion of manufacture does not find place in the show cause notice. In general, packing of manufactured goods for their safety or protect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (h) Raja Radio Co. v. CC reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.) = 1995 (58) ECR 581 (SC). 8. We have considered the ahove submissions. We observe that learned counsel's arguments have a lot of force. The appellants' contention that neither the material (Organic Surface Active Agent) nor the packing material belongs to them has not been contradicted or shown to be wrong. On the contrary, in his finding portion, the Collector himself comes to the conclusion that the Organic Surface Active Agent was manufactured by M/s. Agarwal Organics Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of specifications given by NOCIL who in turn, marketed the goods under the trade name `Teepol'. It is also not in dispute that the product is a liquid detergent produced ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Chapter 24, Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 and Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33. There is, however, no such inclusion corresponding to the above Chapter Notes in Chapter 34 under which the Organic Surface Active Agents fall. Therefore, the, appellants' contention that the process undertaken by them is not a process of manufacture is correct. 12. Furthermore, once admittedly the goods were being manufactured (that in albiet form) by M/s. Agarwal Organics Pvt. Ltd., the duty liability, if any, was on that firm and in fact, the Collector himself refers to some duty having been paid by M/s. Agarwal Organics and the duty (or a part of it) could not be demanded in respect of the same goods from another person. 13. If the Department ....