2004 (8) TMI 137 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the appellant as a manufacturer for the process undertaken.
2. Interpretation of Chapter Notes 11 to 29 regarding repacking and labeling of goods.
3. Applicability of legal principles from previous judgments to the current case.
4. Relevance of limitation and duty payability issues.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case is whether the appellant can be considered liable as a manufacturer for the process undertaken. The appellant argues that repacking, labeling, and re-labeling of duty-paid goods should not be considered a manufacturing process. They highlight that certain goods are sold in bulk without repacking, and the repacking process involves putting their own trademark on the goods. The appellant contests that this activity does not amount to manufacturing.

2. The interpretation of Chapter Notes 11 to 29 is crucial in determining the liability of the appellant. The Trade Notice issued by the Central Excise Office clarifies that offloading bulk liquid chemicals into different containers at dealer premises does not constitute a repacking operation amounting to manufacturing. Various legal precedents, such as the case of M/s. Lakme Lever Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd., provide guidance on what activities can be considered as manufacturing under the Central Excise Act.

3. The legal principles established in previous judgments, such as the case of M/s. Lupin Laboratories Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Ltd., are found to be directly applicable to the current case. These judgments clarify that certain activities, like combining marketable products into a single pack or converting wholesale packs to retail packs, may not amount to manufacturing under the Central Excise Act. The principles from these cases support the appellant's argument against being classified as a manufacturer.

4. While issues related to limitation and duty payability are raised, they are deemed irrelevant due to the strong merits favoring the appellant. The Tribunal allows the appeal based on the arguments presented regarding the manufacturing process, interpretation of Chapter Notes, and the applicability of legal principles from previous judgments. The decision highlights the importance of correctly interpreting statutory provisions and legal precedents in determining liability under the Central Excise Act.