2005 (5) TMI 358 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Notice requirement under Section 35B(4) of the Central Excise Act.
2. Classification of activity as 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 10 of the CETA Schedule.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a dispute regarding the notice requirement under Section 35B(4) of the Central Excise Act. The respondents requested an adjournment, claiming they did not receive the required notice. However, the record showed that notices were duly issued to the respondents, fulfilling the statutory requirement. The Tribunal noted that the respondents were not entitled to file any cross-objection as they were not aggrieved by the order challenged by the Revenue. The application for adjournment was deemed frivolous, and the appeal was taken up for disposal.

2. The main issue revolved around the classification of the respondents' activity as 'manufacture' under Chapter Note 10 of the CETA Schedule. The respondents had repacked goods labeled as "Stannous Chloride" in fresh containers after the initial rejection by the buyer. The Revenue contended that this constituted 'manufacture' attracting duty. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing Chapter Note 10, which applies to activities on duty-paid bulk goods received by an assessee. Since the repacking in this case did not involve the specified activities mentioned in the Note, it did not amount to 'manufacture.' The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the activity of repacking undertaken by the respondents did not fall within the scope of 'manufacture' as defined under Chapter Note 10 of the CETA Schedule. The judgment clarified the statutory notice requirements and affirmed the decision regarding the classification of the activity in question.