9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 24-3-06 KTV Oil Mills E/388/06 June 2004 to August 2004 17,99,894/- 5,00,000/- 46/2005 dated 30-5-05 KTV Oil Mills E/692/05 August 2003 to October 2003 7,66,172/- 10,000/- 2.The common issues arising for decision are, (i)Whether packing and labelling of refined edible oil in bulk into retail packs amount to manufacture in terms of Note 4 to Chapter 15 of First Schedule to the CETA 1985. (ii)If the answer to the above question is yes, whether such repacked and labelled goods are eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 6/02-CE dated 1-3-2002 if the input oil was cleared under DEPB scheme availing exemption? 3.As the second question does not survive if the answer to the first question, is in the negative, we take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the manufacturer. 7.RHFL cleared the impugned goods during September 2004 to February 2005. After issuing Show Cause Notice and hearing the party, the Commissioner decided that the impugned goods had been manufactured in terms of clause (ii) of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Note 4 to Chapter 15. As per the said clause (ii), "manufacture" meant any process specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter notes to the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture. In the instant case, the relevant Note 4 to Chapter 15 reads as under : "4.In relation to the products of sub-heading Nos. 1502.00, 1503.00, 1504.00 and 1504.90, labelling or relabelling of containers and rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudication. He observed that in the instant case, Palmolein consignments not ready for marketing had been repacked and labelled to render them marketable. Therefore, it was concluded that as per Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15, the impugned goods had been manufactured and duty was demanded as the input oil had been imported under DEPB scheme and cleared without payment of additional customs duty. 9.Before us the following legal arguments were made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. As per Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15, only labelling or relabelling of goods repacked from bulk packs to smaller packs amounted to manufacture. The appellants had only packed and labelled goods received in bulk/tanker trucks and not goods receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes clearly refers to a process other than those earlier specified in them..............". The appellants had not undertaken any activity other than packing which would be covered by 'any other treatment' referred to in the Chapter Note. The learned Counsel cited the following observation of the Tribunal in the Ammonia Supply Company case in support of his argument. "In relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or re-labelling 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." From the above Chapter Note one can spell out the manufacturing process only if the activities mentioned therein are carried ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in returnable cylinders and the labelling of cylinders was disputed. In the instant case the appellants had registered as assessee as per the Central Excise Rules for the impugned activity and the present controversy was raised only when they were called upon to pay duty on repacking of imported goods cleared under DEPB. 12.We have carefully considered the facts and arguments. There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case. The Note 10 of Chapter 28 reads as follows : "In relation to products of this Chapter, labelling or re-labelling 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." Note 4 of Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom bulk packs into smaller packs. We also agree with the argument of the appellants that their activity did not involve 'any other treatment referred to in the said Note 4. Thus we find that the answer to the first question we formulated at the outset is in the negative. As we have found that the appellants did not undertake any activity deemed to be manufacture in the Chapter Notes in CETA Schedule, the enquiry whether the input oil had suffered duty of excise or additional duty of customs is irrelevant. In the circumstances we find the Order in Original No. 47/05 dated 30-12-05 passed by the Commissioner in the case of Ruchi Health foods (P) Ltd. is not sustainable in law. We find that similar orders on the issue passed by the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
