9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. - Heard both sides. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand of duty on the ground that there is no suppression to intent to evade payment of duty on part of the respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the show cause notice was issued in the yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been brought to the notice of Revenue. Therefore, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that regarding suppression with intent to evade payment of duty are not sustainable. Therefore, in view of the Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 29, the appellants are manufactured the excisable goods hence liable to pay duty. 5. The contention of respondent is that the allegation is that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Johnson & Johnson Ltd. reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T. 467 (S.C.), where the labelling of medicaments after import. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the Chapter Note to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff does not amount to manufacture. The respondents also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to "manufacture"." 7. The appellant produced evidence to show that the goods valued at Rs. 38,31,781/- were cleared in the same packing of product 25/30 kgs. In the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
