TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had addressed a letter dated 7-12-1993 to Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore seeking clarification from the department regarding excisability and dutiability of liquid sodium silicate manufactured out of duty paid sodium silicate and the Superintendent of Central Excise, Pollachi-I Range vide his letter O.C. No. 15/94, dated 4-1-1994 had clarified that the process of dissolving the Solid Form of Sodium Silicate in water would not amount to manufacture and such units would not come under the purview of the Central Excise Licensing Control. Therefore, they surrendered the Registration Certificate dated 17-10-1994 and had filed a declaration on 21-10-1994, thereafter did not file any declaration after the introduction of Note 10 to Chapter 28 of Central Excise Tariff which was introduced w.e.f. 1-3-1997 to the effect that :- "In relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture". 2.It is alleged that solid sodium silicate is duty paid item which was received by M/s. ASCPL from M/s. ACI f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cate cannot be used directly in the manufacture of soap. It undergoes lot of processes to become liquid sodium silicate, as admitted by them in the "process of manufacture" furnished to the department. Further, with regard to their argument as to "marketability", I would like to mention here that because of the fact the liquid sodium silicate could not be stored for a long time, only solid sodium silicate is marketed as such. In order to get liquid sodium silicate, it is not a simple process as to adding water to the solid sodium silicate, but it undergoes various processes as explained by them. Therefore, I hold that the process involved in bringing out the liquid sodium silicate amounts to "manufacture" and the same is rightly coming under the purview of Section Note 10 of Chapter 28 of CET". It was pointed out that the Addl. Commissioner had clearly recorded that the item could not be stored for long and only solid sodium silicate was marketable as such and this itself was sufficient to hold that these were not goods to be used by the consumer under Note 10 of Chapter 28 and should have dropped the proceedings. However, the Commissioner in the impugned order did not appreciat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Consumer goods, means those used directly (especially domestically), not in manufacturing etc. (page 366) 6.With regard to the definition of said term, the reliance was placed on the following citations :- (1) Mangla Brothers v. CC, Bombay - 1984 (15) E.L.T. 151 (T) (2) CCE, Indore v. Pure Pharma Ltd. - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 386 (T) = 2002 (51) RLT 156 (T) (3) Ammonia Supply Co. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (131) E.L.T. 626 (T) = 2001 (45) RLT 271 (T) (4) RamKishore Chemicals Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 106 (T) He submitted that in the following citations the term "Consumer" and "Consumer goods" were discussed :- (1) Lakme Lever Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-III - 2001 (127) E.L.T. 790 (T) (2) Mod Apparel Exports v. CC, Calcutta - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 388 (T) (3) Jayanti Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (141) E.L.T. 162 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 133. He also submitted t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f following judgments on the aspect of non-invocation of larger period would apply to this case also :- (1) Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Co. v. CCE - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) (2) Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. CCE, Madras - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) (3) Lubri-Chem Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay - 1994 (73) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) (4) CCE, Kanpur v. U.P. Lamination - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 440 (S.C.) 9.With regard non-applicability of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act for imposing penalty, he relied on the following judgments :- (1) Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, Pune - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 679 = 2001 (47) RLT 1 (T) (2) Flex Engg. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2000 (39) RLT 533 (T) (3) Dhillon Kool Drinks Beverages v. CCE - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 81 (T) (4) Majestic Auto Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 551 (T). 10.He also submitted that maximum pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Note 3 to Chapter 18 was invoked to hold that conversion of bulk chocolates and chocolate bars into smaller pieces is the process which renders the chocolates marketable to consumer and shall amount to process of manufacture. In view of these judgments, ld. SDR prayed for dismissal of the appeals by sustaining the order of the Commissioner. 14.On a careful consideration of the submissions, we notice that the Department had itself in the initial stage clarified to the appellants that this process of converting solid sodium silicate into liquid sodium silicate did not amount to a process of manufacture and the item liquid sodium silicate are not goods. The appellants were clarified in the matter not to pay duty. This is an admitted fact. After the introduction of Note 10 to Chapter 28, it has to be seen as to whether the said process has brought into existence a product marketable to the consumers. The term "Consumer" has already been extracted from the Dictionaries above. The item has to be in a marketable stage to be used by the consumer who are the ultimate users of the goods. In the present case, the solid sodium silicate was converted into liquid sodium silicate by additio....