9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI] to hold in favour of the respondent. - Respondent was receiving the edible oil in tankers. It is not bulk pack as the finding, which has not been controverted by the Revenue. - impugned order before us is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. - Decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/2867 & 2868/05 - order No.A/3792-3793/15 - Dated:- 2-11-2015 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (AR) For the Respondent : Shri V.B. Gaikwad, Advocate ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. P-II/BKS/263-264/2005 dated 31.5.2005 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is to be considered together for holding the activity of manufacture. He would submit that the issue is no more res integra as the Apex Court in the case of Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. - 2015 (321) ELT 5 (SC) have settled the law. He would draw our attention to the said judgment and also submit that this Bench in the case of JPB Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Hitesh J Gandhi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2015 (10) TMI-834-CESTAT-MUM on a similar issue held in favour of the assessee. He produced a copy of the said judgment. 4. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 5. The facts are undisputed that the appellant is engaged in the activity of repacking of refined edible oil in retail p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter 29 and the Tribunal applying the ratio of judgment in the case of Ammonia Supply Co. has decided the following cases in the parties favour - (i) Ammonia Marketing Co. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore - 2001 (133) ELT 709, (ii) Ram Kishore Chemicals Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi - 2002 (145) ELT 106, (iii) Hotz Ind. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida - 2005 (66) RLT 690. Therefore, in the present case, the activity of packing refined edible oil received in tankers into small containers cannot be treated as manufacturing activity in terms of Note 4 of Chapter 15 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, 1985. Therefore, there is no merit in the stand of the Department. In view of the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Note 11 of Chapter 29 and Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 32 of the Act, which gives extended meaning to manufacture by creating a fiction, the appellant wants to rope in the respondent-assessee under the aforesaid Chapter Notes. The two chapter notes, viz., Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 and Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 32 are identically worded and read as under :- Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 : In relation to products of this chapter, labelling or re-labelling of containers and re-packing from bulk to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture. Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 32 : In relation to products of heading No. 32-06, labelling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principle to the facts of this case, in the first instance, we find that though the show cause notice covered all the three products, viz., dyes dye bases, napthols fast bases, as well as chrome pigments, the final order which was passed by the adjudicating authority, did not levy any excise duty on dyes and dye bases. Thus, we are concerned with the remaining two products, viz., napthols fast bases and chrome pigments. 4. Insofar as the napthols fast bases is concerned, even from the order of the Commissioner, it becomes clear that though there was repacking and even relabeling, the repacking of bulk was not into retail packing as the goods after repacking were supplied to industrial consumers on wholesale basis. It is specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
