TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 193
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20,000/-. Personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the second appellant Shri Arun Kanti Paul, partner of the appellant company. 2.The said demand of duty has been confirmed on the following products, by treating the same as classifiable under sub-heading No. 3402.90. (i) Ultraclean Audiotape Headcleaner. (ii) DCF-847-Degreasing and Cleansing Fluid. (iii) SCO-846-Switch Cleaning Oil-cleans and lubricates switch controls. 3.The appellants duly represented by Shri K.K. Banerjee, ld. adv. have strongly argued that the activity undertaken by the appellant resulting in emergence of the above products cannot be called a manufacturing activity inasmuch as the appellants are only filtering and re-packing thinner, liquid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that no manufacture having taken place, the duty confirmed against the appellant was not justified. 4.Arguing on the limitation Shri Banerjee contends that the period in which the demand has been confirmed is from 1-3-94 to 5-9-97. Whereas the show cause notice has been issued on 18-2-98 i.e. well beyond the limitation period. While agreeing that no classification list was filed by them, he draws our attention to the letter dated 8-3-94 written to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta disclosing the activity undertaken by them and requesting the Revenue to let them know as regards the Central Excise formalities required to be observed by them. As such he submits that no suppression, misstatement etc. can be attributed to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e being marketed as cleanser and they gave the impression as if they are only re-packing the raw material into smaller packs. It was not disclosed as to whether a new name has been given to the product and their applicability and functions have not been clearly defined in the said letter. As such he submits that the Revenue was right in invoking the larger period of limitation. 7.We have considered the submissions made from both the sides and have gone through the order. It is seen that admittedly the appellant products, which are disputed are tape head cleaner, recording head cleaner and switch cleaning oil and degreasing and cleaning fluid of Philips brand. The question is as to whether the said products can be called manufactured prod....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cially packed for servicing audio/video industry, switch cleaning oil cleans and lubricates switch controls. The above would show that the products in question are different commercial commodities than the raw materials out of which the same have been manufactured. The uses to which the instant goods can be put to, would not have been served by the raw materials packed in big containers. The impugned goods have definitely become fit for commercial use by the target customer, only after processes undertaken by the appellants, thus satisfying the tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. In any case, we note that chapter note 6 was introduced in chapter 34 holding the activity of re-packing, re-labelling as amounting ....