2010 (1) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Whether labeling/re-labeling amounts to manufacture Appellant removed the labels of the original manufacturer and affixed their labels - activity taken over by the appellants covers the some period prior to 1997 and some period after 1997 and both the periods in dispute the case of the appellants squarely covered by the various judgments of this Tribunal - these processes were not intended to be deemed manufacture at the relevant time Held that - appellant s case is squarely covered by the substantial decisions referred by the learned Advocate and the Apex Court on the identical issue has taken view that the activity taken over by the appellants does not amount to manufacture.

Issues: Confirmation of Central Excise duty, penalty imposition, labeling/re-labeling activity, manufacture definition, applicability of case laws.

Confirmation of Central Excise Duty and Penalty Imposition:
The appellants filed appeals against the confirmation of Central Excise duty and penalties imposed on them. The duty amount and penalties were significant, leading to a total sum of Rs. 43,63,410.90 for duty and Rs. 49,43,717/- as penalty. Additionally, individual penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on the Vice-President and Rs. 2 lakhs on the Executive Branch Manager of the appellant company were also confirmed. The demand for interest was upheld along with the duty and penalties.

Labeling/Re-labeling Activity and Manufacture Definition:
The case revolved around the appellant firm's engagement in labeling/re-labeling of chemicals. The firm received various chemicals from different parties, removed the original manufacturer's labels, and affixed their labels before dispatching the products to customers. The central issue was whether this activity constituted manufacturing. The appellants argued that the process did not amount to manufacture based on precedents. They relied on judgments such as Nilgiri Herbals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE and CCE v. BOC (I) Ltd. to support their claim that labeling/re-labeling alone does not qualify as manufacture. The absence of specific phrases in the relevant notes at the time further strengthened their argument that the activity did not fall under the definition of manufacture.

Applicability of Case Laws and Judicial Precedents:
The Advocate representing the appellants cited various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court, to support their contention that labeling/re-labeling activities do not amount to manufacture. They highlighted cases like Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. to emphasize that mere labeling or re-labeling without additional packing or repacking does not transform the product into a marketable commodity directly to the consumer. The Advocate successfully argued that the appellants' activities aligned with the interpretations provided in the referenced judgments, leading to the conclusion that the labeling/re-labeling process did not constitute manufacture.

Judgment and Decision:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal concurred with the appellants' position. The Tribunal found that the case was similar to substantial decisions referenced by the Advocate and agreed with the Supreme Court's stance that labeling/re-labeling activities do not amount to manufacture. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant case laws and the understanding that the appellants' activities did not meet the criteria for manufacturing as per the Chapter Note.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal intricacies involved in determining whether labeling/re-labeling activities constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise laws, highlighting the significance of judicial precedents and legal interpretations in reaching a decision.

← Previous Next →