9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se Act, 1944, the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. In these circumstances, we hold that the activity undertaken by the appellant is amounts to manufacture. MRP declared before the Customs or before the Central Excise is the same therefore, the duty payable on the said goods is equal to the CVD paid by the appellant. Therefore, the situation is of Revenue neutrality as held by this Tribunal in the cases of L’Oreal (2014 (8) TMI 132 - CESTAT MUMBAI) and BASF India Ltd. (2009 (1) TMI 513 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD). As the whole exercise in this case is of revenue neutrality, therefore, following the above cited decisions, we hold that although the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture but the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the goods were seized and impugned proceedings were initiated. The learned Commissioner held that the activity amounts to manufacture therefore the duty demand was confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty was also imposed. The goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. l crore. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before us. 3. As the matter came up for several times before this Tribunal and this Tribunal was of the view that the stay application has to be heard along with appeal therefore we take up the appeal as well as the stay application together for final disposal. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to manufacture. Therefore, the show cause notice has rightly been issued to the appellant. The learned Commissioner has rightly upheld that the activity undertaken by the appellant is an activity of manufacture. He also submits that the facts of the case of L Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are distinguishable to the facts of this case but on the issue of revenue neutrality he fairly admitted that the duty demanded in the show cause notice and the CVD paid by the appellant on the MRP basis are the same. 7. Considered the submissions made by both sides. 8. We find that in this case, the show cause notice issued to the appellant on the issue whether the activity of labelling/re-labelling or putting stickers on the imported goods amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
