TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, Mumbai. 2. The facts of the present case is that the appellant is engaged in telemarketing of products by TV advertising. The Appellant purchases goods from importers at local level and carry out the process of packing in secondary boxes as well as putting stickers which bears the name of the product, the importer's name, name of the company marketing it, item code, date of import and the MRP. The officers visited the Appellant's business premises and seized the goods. In case of goods i.e Magic Bullet Food Processor (MG Fresh), Magic Bullet Food Processor MG (Return), Power juicer PJ (Return), Drink N Fit Juicer DNK (Fresh), Drink N Fit Juicer DNK (Return) Steam Xtreme SX (Return), the revenue viewed that the goods being clas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from various importers. That the said goods are brought to their godown and packing is not changed but for additional safety in transport and to prevent damage during transit and also as per requirement of postal authorities an additional package on the outer side of the packaged goods are provided. Also as per the requirement of Standards of Weights & Measures Act the MRP is affixed and their name is affixed. He submits that the four products under reference are falling under chapter 85 and the chapter note of the said chapter indicate that the process of packing and relabeling has not been prescribed as process of manufacture. That the process of packing for safety of goods does not amount to manufacture. It was further argued by him tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Vikshara Trading & Invest P. Ltd. 2003 (157) ELT 4 (SC) and Bhalla Enterprises 2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC). He further submits that the demand is time barred as the facts of selling of goods were well known as the products being advertised and marketed to the public through Television. That the issue of chargeability to duty after affixing MRP and their name to the products in question and such activity not being prescribed as amounting to manufacture in the relevant chapter notes and the introduction of Schedule IIIrd in case of the goods involves the legal interpretation and not a case of intentional evasion of duty. That in such facts, the demands raised by invoking extended period of limitation are not sustainable. As regard penalty imposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iraj Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE 2004 (177) E.L.T. 892 (Tri. - Mumbai) and Nestle India Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh-II 2011 (270) E.L.T. 575 (Tri. - Del.) in support of his contention. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that in the case the Appellants were importing goods and after packing of same in corrugated boxes were affixing the importers name as well as MRP in addition to other details. Such activity is covered under manufacture under Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as stipulated under Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act. The Appellant has contended that the they are the owner of Trade Mark as the brand name was registered in their name in India. We find that once the brand name Magic ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. - Kolkata), Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. CCE 2002 (147) E.L.T. 786 (Tri. - Del.), 2002 (147) E.L.T. 786 (Tri. - Del.), Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2016 (339) E.L.T. 132 (Tri. - Chan.) and DSM Anti-Infective India Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (165) ELT 69 (TRI). 7. We further find that the Appellant have challenged the demands on time bar on the ground that the show cause notice was issued on 08.10.2008 for the period September 2003 to June 2007 by invoking extended period of limitation. We find that as apparent from the investigation there is no instance showing that the Appellant had intention to evade payment of duty. We find that the Appellants were in ignorance of schedule Third to the Central Excise Tariff. It was only during investiga....