TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 410
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority has been dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner, Delhi vide his order dated 3-10-2008 had confirmed demand of Rs. 48,378/- along with interest thereon and equal amount of penalty against the appellants. By the present application, the appellants are seeking waiver of requirement of deposit of the said amount during the pendency of the appeal. 3. The appellants were manufacturer and dealing with various paints classifiable under Chapter 32 of the First Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had one of the depots at Ajmeri Gate, Delhi. 4. It is a case of the department that pursuant t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gabad reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 366 (Tri.-Mumbai), Commissioner v. Lupin Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2004 (166) E.L.T. A116 and Buns & Cones Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 462 and drawing our attention to the amended definition of the term "manufacture" in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the learned Advocate submitted that tinting process, unless it is undertaken for the purpose of marketability of the same to the consumer, cannot be construed as amounting to manufacture within the meaning of the said expression under the said Act. He submitted that the provision is almost in pari materia with Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and that the same w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e expression T. B. used in the invoices, it was sought to be contended that the same disclosed tinting base. 8. Learned DR on the other hand submitted that invoices were not submitted with the required declaration to the Department and, therefore, merely on the basis of EXPA in the invoices department could not be presumed to have knowledge about the process of tinting which was being undertaken by the appellants in their depot. 9. The definition of the term 'manufacture, begins with the expression "includes in process...." Apparently the definition is inclusive one. It is settled law that such a definition is always construed to be extensive. Clause (iii) of the said definition which was introduced w.e.f. 14-5-2003 read t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....make product further marketable to the consumer would also amount to manufacture and that is the intention of legislature disclosed in the said clause of the definition. 11. In any case, this issue need not be addressed in detail at this stage. Suffice to refer to the statement of the Branch Manager of the appellants Sh. Vijay Malhotra recorded on 21-11-2007 and referred to in the order passed by the adjudicating authority and not disputed by the appellants. In his statement it was clearly stated by the Branch Manager that "a computer generated sticker of the obtained shade after tinting process is affixed on the container at their depot so that the product be ready for marketing". Obviously, therefore, the process of tinting was b....