1988 (8) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Classification of goods for excise duty - Whether repacking and renaming goods amounts to manufacture for excise duty purposes.

Summary:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of goods for excise duty purposes, specifically focusing on whether repacking and renaming goods constitutes manufacture. The appellant, a manufacturer of excisable goods, repacked duty paid mineral turpentine and xylol into smaller containers with different names, arguing that the goods were non-excisable. The Collector (Appeals) held in favor of the appellant, stating that the repacked goods were not liable for excise duty.

The learned SDR contended that despite the goods being the same, the repacking and renaming constituted a new commodity subject to excise duty. Citing legal precedents, the SDR argued that the processes undertaken by the appellant were incidental to manufacture.

In response, the respondents argued that repacking and renaming did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the C.E. & S. Act, citing relevant case law to support their position.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that there was no change in the nature or identity of the goods due to repacking and renaming. The Tribunal distinguished the legal precedents cited by the parties, concluding that the goods in question did not undergo a process of manufacture and therefore were not liable for excise duty.

Relying on specific judgments, the Tribunal held that repacking and relabelling alone did not constitute manufacture, emphasizing that the goods had not undergone any substantial change to warrant excise duty liability. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal.