2000 (5) TMI 362 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Duty liability on re-packed washing preparations.
2. Immediate effect of Chapter Note 6 in Chapter 34 of the Tariff under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931.
3. Use of brand name and eligibility for small scale exemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Duty Liability on Re-packed Washing Preparations:
The appeal concerns the duty liability on re-packed washing preparations classifiable under sub-heading No. 3402.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, cleared during March 1994. The re-packed washing preparations were removed under the brand name 'Tata OK,' which belonged to an entity ineligible for the small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-2-93. The appellants argued that the duty was not payable since Chapter Note 6 in Chapter 34 of the Tariff, which treated re-packing as a manufacturing process, was enforceable only from 13-5-94 when the Finance Bill 1994-95 was enacted.

2. Immediate Effect of Chapter Note 6 in Chapter 34 of the Tariff:
The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta, held that Chapter Note 6, introduced by sub-clause (a) of Clause 62 of the Finance Bill, 1994, was effective from 1-3-94 due to the declaration under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. The appellants contended that the Act of 1931 did not apply to the insertion of Chapter Notes, and thus, the Note was effective only from the enactment date. The Tribunal found that the amendments specified in the Third Schedule of the Finance Bill, including Note 6, were covered by the declaration under the Act of 1931, making them effective immediately upon the introduction of the Bill in Parliament. The Tribunal cited several decisions, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Empire Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I., to support the view that processes incidental to packing are included in the process of manufacture.

3. Use of Brand Name and Eligibility for Small Scale Exemption:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of brand name usage. The appellants had used the brand name 'Tata OK,' making them ineligible for the small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal referred to the decision in Unity Paints & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Calcutta-II, where it was held that stenciling the name and address of the customer on the containers amounted to the use of a brand name, thus disqualifying the product from the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the affixation of a brand name on the packing of washing preparations is a well-recognized practice and universally accepted by consumers.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the duty liability on the re-packed washing preparations and the immediate effect of Chapter Note 6 from the date of the Finance Bill's introduction. The use of the brand name 'Tata OK' disqualified the appellants from the small scale exemption. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the lower authorities was upheld.