TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 109
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and order dated 29th June, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Appellate Tribunal"). The dispute involved in this Appeal is considerably narrow. A show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to the respondentassessee, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A to the memorandum of appeal. The paragraph 10 of the show cause notice is material for our consideration which reads thus:- "As per the assessee's letter dated 31.03.2004 and as per the statement dated 3rd April, 2004 of Shri Sadiquali M. Noorani, it is evident that the assessee is involved in following activity in their registered premises: (i) Footwear a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the respondent-assessee was that the activity of taking out footwear in finished form from the boxes bearing M.R.P. and labelling the same with their brand names "Metro" and "Mochi" and of putting them into the same boxes is not "manufacture" as defined under clause (f) of Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the said Act"). The said contention was not accepted by the Commissioner of Central Excise and it was held that the said activity amounts to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the said Act. Accordingly, the demand made on the basis of show cause notice was confirmed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appeal was partly allowed only in relation to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned judgment and order. 6. The parties relied upon the various decisions. The said decisions are: (1) Commissioner of Central Excise v/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. 2005 (188) E.L.T. 467 (S.C.); (2) Ceramics and Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s. Union of India & Others 1981 (8) E.L.T. 358 (Bom.); (3) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v/s. BOC (I) Ltd. 2008 (226) E.L.T 323 (S.C.); (4) Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v/s. Superintendent, Central Excise and others 1981(8) E.L.T. 730 (Bom.) and (5) Nitin Patki v/s. Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II 2011 (273) E.L.T. 104 (Tribunal at Mumbai).. 7. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It will be necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to rebate of duty if on remand it is established that in fact the footwear were received in unit boxes?" 9. In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the question of law as framed by order dated 14th September, 2007 will have to be moulded as the activity which is subject matter of dispute in this appeal did not involve affixing of M.R.P stickers and bar code on the body of the footwear and the activity involved only putting of brand names on the body of the footwear. 10. Thus, it is not in dispute that the respondent-assessee received footwear in its finished form in the labeled boxes bearing M.R.P. The work carried out for the respondent is of affixing its brand name on the manufactured footwear. As admittedly, the footwear in fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v/s. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court held thus : "4. The learned Additional Solicitor appearing on behalf of the appellant has impugned the decision of the Tribunal and has submitted that admittedly in this case there was labelling after the medicaments were imported. As far as repacking was concerned, it is submitted that the goods were imported in pallets with one big box containing two smaller boxes. The smaller boxes contained contained assorted medicines of different potencies. These assorted medicines were in smaller units. The Eprex units contain syringes with six vials. These units were removed from the boxes, repacked in thermocole box....