2023 (9) TMI 1441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ine Consumer Healthcare (GSK) for carrying out job work for them. As per the agreement, intermediate malt-based power manufactured at various units of GSK was forwarded to the appellant in drums. The appellant is required to manufacture and pack the finished product for GSK in pouches or jars having brand name of 'Horlicks' on it. The appellant is receiving the conversion charges for the said activity. The appellant manufactures and clears Malted Milk Food by availing exemption of the excise duty payable on the said malt-based food product under Notification No.20/2007-CE : dated 25.04.2007. 3. The revenue is of the view that the activity of processing undertaken by the appellant does not amount to manufacture, therefore, various s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of 'Horlicks', which falls under chapter heading 19019090 of CETA. The activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture, therefore, the appellant qualifies as a manufacturer in terms of section 2(f)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture even in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with chapter note 5 of chapter 19 of CETA, 1985. The said chapter note clearly stipulates that "in relation to the item classifiable under chapter 19, activity of labeling, relabeling or repacking of containers to render the product marketable, amounts to manufacture". It is his submission that the activity undertaken by the appellant brings about a ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant by GSK's personnel on a permanent/regular basis and the agreement provides that transaction between the parties on principal to principal basis and the appellant is not the agent of GSK. In that circumstances, the activity undertaken by the appellant is a manufacturing activity. He further relied on the decision in the case of Ujagar Prints v. Union of India [1988 (38) ELT 535 (SC)] and Empire Industries Limited v. Union of India [1985 (20) ELT 179 (SC)] to say that excise duties are leviable on manufacture of production/manufacture of excisable goods and ownership of goods do not determine excise liability. 8. He also submitted that the appellant is recognized manufacturer by various statutory bodies namely the appellant is regis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises during the material period, which I have taken note of. ................. 15.3. In other words, the Noticee, having been a contracted producer of goods on behalf of M/s. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Limited, lawfully deserve consideration as manufacturer under Excise Law in terms of the Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944; consequently, the impugned goods, namely, malt based food items produced by the Noticee should be subjected to levy of duty in terms of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 15.4. Further, as dealt with in detail in the preceding paragraphs, Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines "manufacture" inter-alia to include any process which, in relation to the goods specified in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant is not a manufacturer is not sustainable. 15. We further find that the appellant undertakes the activity/processing on the bulk malt based powder, received from GSK thereafter removal of unwanted particles from the bulk malt based powder to make it fit for human consumption. Then processing/blending of the bulk powder with sweetened milk powder, sugar, vitamins etc. to make it marketable in the finished form and then packing of the final manufactured product either in pouches or in jars having brand name of 'Horlicks' on it. The said activity undertaken by the appellant do qualify as process of manufacturing in terms of section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as the activity undertaken by the appellant bring....