TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n name, address and brand name to the label on the barrels. Test certificates on samples drawn from the imported goods had also accompanied the goods in barrels so sold by the respondents. As the party considered this activity to be a trading activity, they did not pay duty of excise on the above clearances. After conducting investigations into the above activity of the respondents, the department issued three show-cause notices for the periods March'97 to Jan'99, Feb'99 to Aug'99 and Sept.'99 to Jan 2000 alleging mainly that the above activity amounted to "manufacture" in terms of Note 5 to Chapter 38 of the CETA Schedule and, therefore, duty of excise should have been paid on the goods sold by them in India after the aforesaid operations ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (vi) In terms of Chapter Note 5 of the Chapter 38 "operations like label ling re-labelling branding/re-branding or adoption of any other treatment on the said product to make them marketable would amount to manufacture (vii) In view of the fact that IAL indulged in operations like sample testing re branding changing the name and address name of the product etc., to make them accepted by customers, such activities would very will be within the definition of "manufacture" as per the Chapter Note above. The imported additives, after undergoing the said activities amounting to manufacture have transformed into a new excisable product distinct in name, character and the use and hence are liable for levy of duty at the time of their clearance."....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be settled in the light of the Board's circular dated 16-5-2001. 4. On the other hand, ld. Counsel, relying on the Apex Court's judgment in Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.), submitted that the earlier instructions of the Board would govern determination of the question whether the activity undertaken by the respondents on the imported goods during the period of dispute (March'97 to Jan'2000) amounted to manufacture and that the contra instructions contained in circular dated 16-5-2001 had no retrospective effect. Relying on H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. Collector, 1997 (94) E.L 3 (S.C.), he submitted that the said circular, issued under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, was effective only from the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s been examined and it is fit that the assessees while pasting stickers on the cartons of these imported medicines are in fact trying to comply with the requirements of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and are not altering any information originally contained in the packages. The Board has also taken note of the opinion of the Drug Controller of India that re-labelling as done by the assessees is necessary to meet the requirements of Rule 96 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Attention is also drawn to Trade Notice No. 58/1988, dated 26-4-1988 which clarified that indication of the name of the manufacturer and Drug Licence No. is a statutory requirement for all drugs. It was further clarified that the exemption under Notification No. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ckaging industry as per Board's circular dated 23-7-1986 as further clarified by circular dt. 7-8-1987. The Board changed its view and, accordingly, held in Circular dt. 16-1-1989 that the above products were to be classified as products of the packaging industry. The Apex Court held that, for the period prior to 16-1-89, the earlier circulars of the Board would govern classification of the goods. Following this decision of the apex court, we hold the view that, with regard to Note 5 to Chapter 30 of the CETA Schedule, the Board's instructions reported in 1996 (87) E.L T18/19 were applicable prior to 16-5-2001. According to those instructions, the pasting of stickers on imported finished medicines to meet the requirements of the Drugs and C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter 38 inasmuch as the labelling/re-labelling of the barrels was done only to meet statutory requirements under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and there was no repacking from bulk to retail pack. 7. In the second part of the Chapter Note, "adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer" is deemed to be 'manufacture'. Ld. Commissioner has eminently dealt with this aspect also. Re- branding of the imported goods was found to have been done as per specific instructions of customers. Sampling and testing were also found to have been done to ensure conformity to specifications of customers. Samples were not drawn from each and every barrel but only from one barrel from each batch. Enclosing a test ce....