2019 (4) TMI 1068 - AT - Central Excise

Process amounting to manufacture or not - already marketable or marketed soaps and detergent bars/cakes, detergent powder, shampoo, tooth paste, etc. in damaged condition, are collected and brought back to the godown and de-packed/de-wrapped or decanted and cut into pieces - HELD THAT - The product is not made marketable to the consumer but it is sold in bulk to various parties, who in turn may make them marketable. The activity of packing or repacking or any other treatment must be for rendering the products marketable. By resorting to such activities of de-packed/de-wrapped or decanted or cutting into pieces rendered the products as non-marketable or nonsaleable. These activities cannot amount to manufacture. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Central Excise duty demand and registration
- Treatment of damaged goods and whether it amounts to manufacture
- Liability of the appellant and cenvat credit

Central Excise Duty Demand and Registration:
The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Original related to the demand of Central Excise duty and other cess amounts from the appellant. The appellant was ordered to obtain Central Excise Registration for their premises and was held liable for the demanded amounts. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under relevant provisions. The appeal challenged these orders.

Treatment of Damaged Goods and Manufacture:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various cosmetics and toiletry products, dealt with damaged or expired goods by collecting them back and rendering them non-marketable through various processes. The issue revolved around whether such activities amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that the goods were not made marketable to consumers but sold in bulk to other parties who might make them marketable. Citing case laws, the appellant contended that the activities did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, found that the goods were rendered non-marketable through the processes undertaken, concluding that such activities did not constitute manufacture.

Liability of Appellant and Cenvat Credit:
The appellant's advocate argued that the show-cause notice should have been issued to a different party, and the appellant was entitled to cenvat credit equal to the duty paid on the finished goods. It was contended that considering the cenvat credit, no duty demand should stand as the duty paid on the finished goods exceeded their scrap value. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, set aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, pronounced in the open court on a specific date.