2019 (7) TMI 1804 - HC - Customs

Refund of SAD - process amounting to deemed manufacture or not - sterilization repacking and labeling - amendment to the provisions of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act which define manufacture - whether the two processes of sterilization and repacking would change the nature of the goods imported such as to render them ineligible for the benefit of the N/N. 102-2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007 - HELD THAT - Paragraph 2(d) of the Notification states that the importer shall pay on the sale of said goods appropriate sales tax or value added tax. This has admittedly been done. According to the department the process of sterilization and repacking effect changes to the goods itself which submission it is not agreed with and rejected. Sterilization of the goods does not change the glove into another commodity. Likewise labelling of glove also does not change the commodity itself. Having undergone both processes the glove remains a glove only. The definition of deemed manufacturer with effect from 11.07.2014 is thus not applicable in the context of the present case and reliance upon the same is misconceived - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.102-2007-Customs regarding exemption from Additional Customs Duty (ACD).
2. Impact of amendment to Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act on importers of Gloves.
3. Consideration of objection on grounds of laches.
4. Dispute over changes in nature of imported goods due to sterilization and repacking.
5. Application of the definition of 'deemed manufacturer' post 11.07.2014.

Analysis:

1. The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Notification No.102-2007-Customs, which exempts imports from the levy of ACD subject to certain conditions. One such condition is the provision of evidence of payment of appropriate sales tax for goods sold domestically. The petitioners, importers of Gloves, fulfilled these conditions and were initially granted refund claims until 11.07.2014. However, subsequent show cause notices led to the rejection of further refund claims, citing changes in the definition of 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act post 11.07.2014.

2. The amendment to Section 2(f) broadened the scope of 'manufacture' to include activities like packing, repacking, labeling, and relabeling of goods. The department argued that the imported Gloves, having undergone sterilization and repacking, were deemed to have been manufactured, thus disqualifying them from the exemption. This contention formed the basis for rejecting refund claims beyond 11.07.2014, leading to a legal dispute regarding the eligibility of the Gloves for the exemption under the notification.

3. An objection on the grounds of laches was raised by the respondent, highlighting the delay in challenging the impugned orders. The petitioner justified the delay by explaining the pursuit of remedies through the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which resulted in the filing of the present writ petitions seeking reconsideration of the orders. The court found the explanation reasonable, considering the actions taken by the petitioner in seeking redressal, and rejected the objection on grounds of laches.

4. The core dispute centered on whether the processes of sterilization and repacking altered the nature of the imported Gloves, rendering them ineligible for the exemption. The court disagreed with the department's argument that these processes transformed the goods into a different commodity, emphasizing that sterilization and labeling did not change the essential nature of the Gloves. As a result, the court rejected the application of the definition of 'deemed manufacturer' post 11.07.2014 to the case at hand.

5. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petitions, affirming that the Gloves remained eligible for the exemption under Notification No.102-2007-Customs. The judgment emphasized that the processes of sterilization and repacking did not alter the fundamental nature of the Gloves, thereby upholding the petitioner's entitlement to the refund claims. The court concluded the analysis without imposing any costs on the parties involved.