2012 (4) TMI 136

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed by them from 8.1.2005 to 7.2.2005 to various agencies like ESI hospitals/dispensaries, etc. The demand so confirmed against the assessee was worked out in terms of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. There were also penalties imposed on the assessee. In an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of adjudication, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that the activity undertaken by the assessee did not amount to manufacture . The assessee-unit had received the goods in labeled packs (cartons) from another unit of the same company (Nagarjunasagar unit) which had paid duty on the goods in terms of Section 4 of the Central Excise Act. It had so received the goods in terms of a permission granted by the jurisdictional Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... peal and has also referred to Chapter Note 5 (presently Chapter Note 6). It is submitted that the repacking done by the assessee was essential for marketing the goods and hence would amount to manufacture . In this context, reliance is placed on the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgement in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. [2005 (188) E.L.T. 467 (S.C.)].   3. The learned counsel for the respondent also relies on the above judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court. He has referred to paragraph 6 of the judgement and has also referred to Chapter Note 5 ibid. It is submitted that there was no repacking done by the respondent in the sense of this term used in the Chapter Note. There was no repacking fr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s received from the Nagarjunasagar unit and packed into a single carton and supplied to consumer by the respondent. Obviously, the form in which the goods were cleared by the respondent was an assorted pack of different medicaments. Therefore, the question of repacking from bulk pack to retail packs or relabelling of retail packs does not arise. The respondent is supported by paragraph 6 of the Hon ble Supreme Court s judgment cited by their counsel. Their lordships held that the Chapter Note required, for the activity to amount to manufacture, repacking from bulk pack to retail packs so as to render the product marketable directly to the consumer. In the present case, the goods received by the respondent from the Nagarjunasagar unit were a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X