9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 517X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appa, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This is an appeal against OIA No. 588/02-C.E., dated 3-10-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. The appellants manufacture P P which are excisable . They removed 2,38,050 vials of Benzyl Penicillin at Nil rate of duty vide invoice dated 26-5-98. The goods were classifiable under C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeared for the appellants and Shri R.V. Ramakrishnappa, learned JDR appeared for the Department. 3. The learned Advocate urged that the entire demand is time barred as the audit note was issued on 12-4-99 and the show cause notice was issued on 7-8-2000. There is no justification for invoking the extended period as the appellants have given D-3 intimation and received the goods under Rule 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom bulk to retail was completed even at the time of original removal. At that time, the manufacturing process was complete. The goods were returned only to remove the defective labels and for relabelling. Hence, during the second instance no manufacture took place and 173H clearly applies to them. Hence demand of duty is not justified. It was further urged that the demand has been issued under Ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the goods were originally removed, at that time there was re-packing from bulk pack to retail packs and also labelling. But when the goods were returned for removing the defective labels, there was merely relabelling. We agree with the learned Advocate that only when relabelling follows re-packing, the process amounts to manufacture. While interpreting Note 10 to Chapter 28, the Tribunal has he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
