2018 (11) TMI 811 - AT - Central Excise

Activity amounting to manufacture - packing, repacking, filtering, cleaning, heating etc. of lubricating oils after which they were sold under the own brand name of the appellant assessee - Held that - Evidently, if these activities already amounted to manufacture there would have been no need to introduce the aforesaid chapter note creating a legal fiction that labelling, relabeling and repacking and adopting any other treatment to render the product to the consumer as manufacture. This chapter note was subsequently renumbered as chapter note 4. The activity do not amount to manufacture - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal by Revenue against abatements and deductions allowed by Commissioner
- Assessee's appeal challenging the leviability of excise duty on products
- Officers' appeal against personal penalties imposed on them

Analysis:
1. The appeals arose from the same order, with the Revenue challenging abatements and deductions allowed by the Commissioner, while the assessee disputed the leviability of excise duty on their products and the officers contested personal penalties. The relevant period was 1994-95 and 1997-98, involving activities like repacking, blending, and addition of additives to lubricant oils.

2. The key contention was whether these activities amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the processes undertaken did not constitute manufacture during the relevant period, citing legal provisions and precedents. The Revenue, however, claimed that the activities transformed the products into a new commercial commodity, thus constituting manufacture.

3. The appellant's counsel highlighted the introduction of a chapter note in 2000, deeming certain processes as manufacture for lubricating oils. They relied on judgments, including those by the Supreme Court, to support their argument that the activities in question did not amount to manufacture before the introduction of the chapter note.

4. After considering the arguments and examining the activities undertaken by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the processes did not amount to manufacture during the relevant period. Citing legal clarifications and previous judgments, including those by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal held that no excise duty was leviable on the appellant's activities. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the assessee's appeals were allowed.

5. The Tribunal's decision resulted in the allowance of the assessee's appeals while rejecting the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized the interpretation of the law, relevant legal provisions, and precedents to determine the non-leviability of excise duty on the activities in question.