2007 (3) TMI 85 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacture Revenue contended that if injectibles were brought in bulks one litre or half litre and then packed into ampoules or vials at other unit that process would have amounted to manufacture Held that the revenue contention is not correct

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2006 by the Revenue.
2. Commissioner's observations on clearance of impugned goods and packing/repacking.
3. Interpretation of Chapter Note No. 5 of Chapter 30 regarding manufacturing activities.
4. References to previous Tribunal rulings and Supreme Court judgments.
5. Rejection of stay application by the Tribunal.

Issue 1: Stay of Operation of Order-in-Appeal:
The Revenue sought a stay of the operation of Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2006, which set aside the Order-in-Original confirming demands. The Commissioner observed that the assessee initially cleared goods on duty payment from a specific unit. No allegation was made in the show cause notice regarding the value adopted not being in line with the law.

Issue 2: Commissioner's Observations on Clearance and Packing/Repacking:
The Commissioner noted that the process of packing or repacking could amount to manufacture based on the circumstances. If injectibles were bulked and then repacked at a different unit, it could be considered manufacturing. However, if smaller quantities were repacked for dispatch without significant alterations, it would not be manufacturing. This finding was challenged.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Chapter Note No. 5:
The learned JDR referred to Chapter Note No. 5 of Chapter 30, emphasizing that certain activities like repacking from bulk to retail packs amount to manufacturing. The learned Counsel argued against repacking between bulk to retail packs, citing relevant Tribunal rulings and a Supreme Court judgment supporting the assessee's position.

Issue 4: References to Previous Rulings and Judgments:
The Counsel cited Tribunal rulings in favor of the assessee, including the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-IV and Eicher Tractors v. CCE, Jaipur. These references supported the view of the Commissioner, leading to the rejection of the stay application by the Tribunal.

Issue 5: Rejection of Stay Application:
Considering the citations provided by the Counsel and the supporting rulings, the Tribunal found no merit in the stay application and rejected it. The Counsel requested an early hearing of the appeal, allowing the party to file an application for early consideration.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, legal interpretations, references to previous rulings, and the final decision of the Tribunal regarding the stay application.