2019 (3) TMI 603 - AT - Central Excise

Process amounting to manufacture - activity of labelling - excisability of goods before cleared for home consumption - Held that - The definition of imported goods under section 2(25) of Customs Act, 1962 makes it amply clear that the goods do not transform from that status till cleared for home consumption. It is not in dispute that the present activity was carried out while the goods were yet categorized as imported and would not, therefore, fall within the purview of Central Excise Act, 1944 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Excisability of goods before clearance for home consumption.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by M/s High Quality Products against an order confirming the duty recovery for labeling activity on imported goods. The appellant argued that the goods, branded as 'HELSINKI' and imported under a specific notification, should not be considered manufactured based on a previous Tribunal decision. The respondent contended that the previous decision was not applicable as it pertained to a different chapter. The Tribunal analyzed the excisability of goods before clearance for home consumption, noting that imported goods do not transform until cleared. The Tribunal referred to the definition of 'deemed manufacture' and various legal precedents to determine the completion of importation. It was established that excise duty liability does not arise until goods are cleared for home consumption. The Tribunal emphasized that the labeling activity, even in private bonded warehouses, does not attract excise duty while goods are under customs control. Consequently, the impugned duty demands were deemed unsustainable, especially for goods with CVD duty liability already discharged. The Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.