2018 (5) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate, for the Appellant. Dr. Ezhilmathi, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : B. Ravichandran, Member (T)]. - The appeal is against order dated 25-1-2006 of Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Cochin. The appellants are engaged in production and sale of packaged drinking water. The dispute in the present appeal is relating to duty liability on such product. The appellant contend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er (A) dropped penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed on the proprietor of the appellant firm. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the product produced and cleared by them is not a result of manufacturing process, as such, they are not liable to Excise duty. Regarding the findings recorded in the impugned order to the effect that excisability of the product was conceded by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fferent stages and finally water is packed in different size of jars from 200 ml to 20 litres affixed with brand name and then are cleared for market. The process undertaken by the appellant to make the product fit for market to the consumers is squarely covered by the said Chapter Note and the process is deemed to be manufacture for the purpose of levy. Regarding the penalty, we note that the ori....