2009 (1) TMI 513 - AT - Service Tax

Cenvat credit - Revenue proposed to deny the benefit of cenvat credit on the ground that the process carried out by the assessee is not manufacture - Deemed manufacture - The main contention of the Commissioner is that the products were already marketable and therefore the activities carried out by the assessees did not come in the definition of deemed manufacture - find that this is a very narrow interpretation of the definition of the manufacture and the safety label, affixing of a new label with the other details, quality assurance check and putting fresh seal definitely would amount to manufacture in terms of the definitions in the Chapter notes and therefore the conclusion of the Commissioner cannot be accepted - Thus on both counts namely that the processes do not amount to manufacture or revenue neutrality, the stand of the Revenue cannot be accepted - Accordingly, appeals filed by the appellants are allowed with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit for manufacturing processes.
2. Whether re-labeling amounts to manufacture.
3. Interpretation of deemed manufacture and revenue neutrality.

Admissibility of Cenvat credit for manufacturing processes:
The appellant, a manufacturing company, faced a dispute with the Revenue regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit for processes related to five products. The Revenue contended that the processes undertaken did not amount to manufacture, leading to the confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and a demand for Cenvat credit repayment. The appellant argued that the processes indeed constituted manufacture, citing Chapter notes and the necessity of re-labeling for international market acceptance. The appellant also referenced Tribunal decisions supporting the admissibility of Cenvat credit for exported final products, even if the process did not strictly qualify as manufacture. The Tribunal acknowledged the necessity of re-labeling for marketability and statutory compliance, ultimately allowing the appeal and rejecting the Revenue's stance.

Whether re-labeling amounts to manufacture:
The appellant's advocate contended that re-labeling processes should be considered as manufacturing activities, emphasizing the significance of re-labeling for product marketability and compliance with statutory regulations. The Revenue, while acknowledging the relevance of cited Tribunal decisions, argued that mere re-labeling did not constitute manufacture. The Tribunal, after evaluating the processes undertaken by the appellant, concluded that re-labeling, along with quality assurance checks and other activities, did amount to manufacture based on Chapter notes and statutory requirements. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's narrow interpretation of manufacturing, emphasizing that activities like affixing new labels and ensuring product quality qualified as manufacturing processes.

Interpretation of deemed manufacture and revenue neutrality:
The Tribunal analyzed the concept of deemed manufacture and revenue neutrality in the context of the appellant's case. Despite the Revenue's argument that the products were already marketable and thus the processes did not meet the definition of deemed manufacture, the Tribunal disagreed. The Tribunal found that activities such as safety labeling, affixing new labels, quality assurance checks, and sealing constituted manufacturing based on Chapter notes and definitions. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that even if the processes did not strictly amount to manufacture, the exercise remained revenue neutral, making the appellant eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellant, providing consequential relief and rejecting the Revenue's stance on both manufacturing processes and revenue neutrality.