TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 651
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Abraham (P) Ltd., imported latex gloves in bulk and cleared the same on payment of SAD. Notification No. 102/07-Cus., dated 14.09.2007 grants refund of SAD, on subsequent sale of goods on payment of duty, subject to conditions enumerated therein. Accordingly, the appellant filed refund claims of SAD paid at the time of clearances of the goods, in terms of the said notification. 3. Revenue entertained a view that inasmuch as latex gloves imported by the appellant, were subsequently put to certain processes like quality inspection visually, placing them in wallet/pouches and further in boxes/packages, which were being subject to process of sterilization, which process amounts to manufacture in terms of section 2(f)(iii) of the Central....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 40 have been brought within the ambit of Schedule-Ill of the Central Excise Act, 1944, whereby the process of packing, repacking, labeling or relabeling or treatment of goods rendering them marketable has been deemed to be amounting to manufacture. As a consequence, the importer is liable to pay Central Excise duty on the imported goods, in which case, it cannot be said that the imported goods have been sold "as such". Accordingly, he rejected the assessee's claim of refund of SAD for the period subsequent to 11.07.2014. Hence, the present appeals. 5. After hearing both sides, we find that the issue has been the subject-matter of various decisions. First of all, we will examine as to whether the process undertaken by the appellant am....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the fact that imported goods, subsequently, after cutting into small pieces, had fallen in a different tariff entry. Tribunal in the case of M/s. Agarwal Timbers Pvt. Ltd., has observed that as long as the identify of the article did not undergo any fundamental change, so as to conclude that what was imported by the importers were different from the item which ultimately was sold by them in the local market, the importer would be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 102/07-Cus. Similarly in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar Vs. M/s. Hero Exports reported in 2013 (298) E.L.T.410 (Tri. -Del.), the Revenue's stand that imported e-bikes in CKD condition were subsequently assembled and sold as e-bikes, thus disentitling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s i.e., the imported goods were repacked, which act amounted to deemed manufacture. The Tribunal observed that the legal fiction of manufacture incorporated in the Chapter note of the Excise Tariff cannot be invoked to interpret a notification under the Customs Tariff Act. The goods have not undergone any change by any process and they remained the same even after repacking. The Tribunal observed that the term "as such" referred to any notification is to mean that the goods should not have undergone any process of change. Therefore, inclusion of Chapter notes in Excise Act, is not sufficient to hold that the goods have not been sold "as such", inasmuch as, the goods have remained the same, in spite of the tact that they have been, deemed to....