2004 (1) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether relabelling of imported goods under Rule 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 4 to Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenges the Commissioner (Appeals) order stating that relabelling of imported goods did not amount to manufacture. The dispute arose when the respondents imported cosmetics, pasted stickers on containers, and cleared them without paying duty, claiming relabelling did not constitute manufacture. The department disagreed, demanding duty payment. The original authority upheld the duty demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision. The Commissioner concluded that relabelling cosmetics for sale did not qualify as manufacturing, citing relevant provisions and circulars.

2. The Revenue contended that pasting stickers made goods marketable, constituting manufacturing. They argued that Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 of the Tariff Schedule required goods to be marketable in India, emphasizing the significance of the conjunction "or" in the note. They also challenged the applicability of a trade notice related to a different chapter. However, the respondents cited precedents and Supreme Court rulings favoring their position, asserting that relabelling under Rule 33 did not amount to manufacturing.

3. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that relabelling under Rule 33 did not amount to manufacturing as per Note 4 to Chapter 33, similar to a previous case where the Apex Court ruled in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted consistency in decisions favoring the respondents' position, emphasizing that the relabelling activity did not aim to make the product marketable. Citing precedents and the Apex Court's dismissal of a previous appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's grounds were untenable, and the issue was decisively settled in favor of the respondents.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that relabelling imported goods under Rule 33 did not constitute manufacturing under Note 4 of Chapter 33, in line with established legal interpretations and precedents favoring the respondents.