TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1348
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Order in Original by which the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and also imposed penalties holding that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of edible oil which are branded as they repacked in the different quantity pack of edible oil from tanker to small containers. 2. The learned AR would submit that there is no dispute as to the facts that the respondent undertook repacking activity of various types of edible oil into retails containers with brand name and has repacked the same from the tankers. He would draw our attention to Note 4 of Chapter 15, to submit that the said note created deemed fiction of manufacturing with labeling or relabeling of containers and repacking from bulk pac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery challan which was produced before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority, in our considered view, correctly followed the law as has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Amonia Supply Company- 2001 (131) ELT 626 to hold in favour of the respondent. The findings of the first appellate authority are as under: - "It is seen that the adjudicating authority did not follow the ratio laid down in the Tribunal's decision in the case of Ammonia Supply C. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2001 (131) ELT 626 by distinguishing the case that the product involved in that case is liquid ammonia, which is a product of industrial application or consumption and not of mass consumption like edible oils. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eiving the edible oil in tankers. It is not bulk pack as the finding, which has not been controverted by the Revenue. 6. We find that the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 15 in the same words as Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 made fiction of repacking/re-labeling as to be deemed manufacture. The said Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29, was being considered by the Apex Court in the case of Amritlal Chemaux (supra). Respectfully, we reproduce the entire judgment: - "There are three products involved in the present appeal and the question is as to whether the process undertaken by the respondent-assessee in these products amounted to manufacture or not. The products are various dyes & dye bases, napthols & fast bases, and chrome pigments. They fall in C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shall amount to manufacture." 2. It was the endeavour of Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, to argue that even if one of the two processes, viz., labelling or relabelling of containers or for that matter, repacking from bulk to retail packs is undertaken, the same should be treated as manufacture. To put it otherwise, he wanted us to read the word "and" not conjunctively but disjunctively. We are not impressed with this argument of Mr. Radhakrishnan. It is clear from the plain language of the aforesaid Chapter Notes which use both the expression or as well as and at different places. Thus, by using the two expressions, the intention of the legislature is manifest that insofar as the process of ....