2018 (7) TMI 85 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - benefit of N/N. 22/2003 dated 01.03.2003 - whether repacking of imported goods supplied to 100% EOU would amount to manufacture by appellant so as to be eligible for the exemption under N/N. 22/2003 dated 01.03.2003 for the clearance of their inputs to 100% EOU without payment of duty on the basis of CT3 and AR-3 certificates or otherwise? - Held that - The Ld. Counsel argues that the appellant would be able to produce evidence to establish this fact if an opportunity is granted to them. It is his submission that the said contention was not considered by the authorities below - it is fit to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration leaving all issues open - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether repacking of imported goods supplied to 100% EOU amounts to manufacture by the appellant for eligibility under Notification No. 22/2003 dated 01.03.2003 for duty exemption on clearances to EOU.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellants holding Central Excise Registration for manufacturing Monosodium Glutamate, sold as "Ajinomoto" under CTH 29224200. The dispute arose when the department contended that clearances to a 100% EOU without duty payment based on CT3 certificates were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 22/2003. The adjudication resulted in a demand for duty, interest, and penalty, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the imported goods underwent repacking and processing in the factory, complying with various statutory requirements like the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Standards of Weights and Measures Act. The appellant's consultant contended that repacking the imported goods constituted a manufacturing process, making them eligible for the exemption. The appellant emphasized the necessity of complying with statutory regulations during repacking.

The Counsel highlighted Chapter Notes of Chapter 29, stating that any process like repacking from bulk to retail packs amounts to deemed manufacture. They argued that even repacking for bulk customers after processing constitutes manufacturing activity, making the appellant eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 22/2003. The Counsel emphasized that the goods were never sold directly from imported stock, reinforcing the manufacturing aspect.

The Respondent reiterated the findings of the lower authorities, asserting that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 22/2003 due to non-payment of duty on clearances to EOU under AR-3 certificate, violating relevant rules.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted the central issue of whether repacking imported goods for 100% EOU qualified as manufacturing by the appellant for exemption eligibility. Not finding a detailed discussion on this aspect in the records, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh consideration, allowing the appellant to provide evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal for remand to the adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the manufacturing aspect of repacking imported goods for EOU clearance and the eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 22/2003, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration by the adjudicating authority based on the arguments presented by the appellant.