TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (4) TMI 96
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o know that it was not liable to pay, it had made several representations, but of to no avail and at last invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2.M/s. Duncan Tea Sales Limited, Calcutta is the manufacturer of the tea and the said loose tea is sent to the petitioner for packaging varying in weight from 3 grams to 500 grams and after the said package, the petitioner delivers back the said tea in packages to M/s. Duncan Tea Sales Limited. The loose tea sent by M/s. Duncan Tea Sales Limited had already suffered excise duty. But, the petitioner was made to believe that for packaging also, he needs to obtain licence and the petitioner had obtained licence and in accordance with the conditions of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid word 'tea' is not defined. Tea is a beverage made from the dried leaves of the tea plant, an evergreen shrub or a small tree. After the tea is made as final product of the manufacturer and before its removal from the place of production, the manufacturer pays excise duty. 3.The question for consideration is as to whether loose tea received from Duncan Tea Sales Limited and picking it and packaging it in various sizes and sending it back to M/s. Duncan Tea Sales Limited, which sells it in market, involves any manufacturing process? 4.This case has a checkered history. By order dated 15-10-1987, a Division Bench of this Court held that the act of packaging by the petitioner does not involve any manufacturing activity and as such, is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is packed after manufacture and comes into the category of package tea will be deemed to have been considered by the legislature to amount to, by itself, a production of manufacture which makes the article excisable to duty and that the authorities are entitled to treat package tea as a separate and excisable item and excise duty levied over package tea is valid and lawful. With regard to the second point, it is held that blending of tea is a process of manufacture resulting in a new tea product having a distinctive quality change whose price varies with the quality. On the third point, it is held that the distinction between packages weighing 27 Kgs or less and those weighing in excess thereof is found to be reasonable. 6.In the instant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....modity with a different identity and name should emerge. In the said case, excise authorities demanded tax describing the item as 'vegetable non-essential oils'. The respondents therein are manufacturers of Vanaspathi and for the said purpose, purchased ground-nut and Til oil in open market or directly from the manufacturers of such oil and the said oils are subjected to different processes in order to refine them and turn into Vanaspathi. It was held by the Supreme Court that the intermediary vegetable non-essential oils containing impurities, which undergo the process of cleansing is not a new product and that it is not separately chargeable and only final product of Vanaspathi is chargeable to excise duty. In J. G. Glass Industries Ltd's....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same in different packages and sends it back to the manufacturer who in turn sells in the market, be it wholesale or retail. By this act, the petitioner is not indulging in any manufacturing activity relating to tea even though package tea is excisable item. The act/kind of package done by the petitioner is not excisable. But, if the manufacturer himself packs the tea in packages before clearance by the excise officials at the place of manufacturing, then the said package tea is chargeable to excise duty. To say, more clearly, that if the manufacturer of the tea seeks a clearance of the excise authorities as a loose tea, then it is exigible to the tax as leviable for loose tea. On the other hand, if the manufacturer seeks clearance of th....