1999 (7) TMI 340 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of bulk lubricating oil cleared for repacking.
2. Applicability of amended Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
3. Determination of whether packing constitutes manufacture.
4. Validity of penalties imposed.

Summary:

Issue 1: Valuation of Bulk Lubricating Oil Cleared for Repacking
The appellants, M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd., cleared bulk lubricating oil to M/s. Unique Packers for repacking into smaller containers. The department issued show cause notices alleging that the clearances to M/s. Unique Packers were stock transfers and not sales, and thus the value should be based on the price at which the repacked oil was sold from the depot. The Tribunal held that the price at which the bulk oil was sold to independent buyers at the factory gate should be the basis for valuation, as this price was available and not contrived.

Issue 2: Applicability of Amended Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944
The department argued that post-amendment, the place of removal included depots, and thus the depot price should be the basis for valuation. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 4(4)(b) included depots as places of removal but clarified that this did not apply to goods that were changed in form (bulk to packed) between the factory and depot. Therefore, the factory gate price of bulk oil should be used for valuation.

Issue 3: Determination of Whether Packing Constitutes Manufacture
The Commissioner held that packing bulk oil into tins amounted to manufacture, thus requiring duty on the value of the packed oil. The Tribunal disagreed, citing precedents that packing or repacking does not constitute manufacture unless specified by Section or Chapter notes, which were not applicable in this case.

Issue 4: Validity of Penalties Imposed
The Commissioner imposed penalties u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and u/r 173Q on M/s. Savita Chemicals Ltd. and its Dy. General Manager. The Tribunal found that the appellants acted in good faith based on departmental advice to another company and that the demand was partly barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalties were deemed unwarranted.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the Tribunal ruled that the factory gate price of bulk oil should be the basis for valuation, packing does not amount to manufacture, and the penalties imposed were invalid.