9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Act, 1985. Manufacture not taking place - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Application No. E/MA(ors)93287/16 Appeal No. E/2199/05 - Order No. A/90742/16/EB - Dated:- 1-9-2016 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran, Member ( Judicial ) And Mr. C. J. Mathew, Member ( Technical ) Shri V. B. Gaikwad, Advocate for appellant Shri M. P. Damle, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per M. V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. PII/BKS/58/2005 dated 31.01.2005. Appellant has also filed a miscellaneous application for raising additional grounds. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue that falls for consideration is whether the repacking of RBB Palmolien Oil received in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion like edible oils. In this regard, it is observed that even though the product involved in this case is different still the case is relevant and the ratio laid down in the said decision is applicable to the present case. Therefore, the tankers cannot be treated as bulk packs and hence packing of the product received in tankers into smaller packs cannot be held as the activity of repacking from bulk packs to retail packs and hence the activity does not amount to manufacture. Further, it is observed that there is no difference in the wording of Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 15. Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 and Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 and the Tribunal applying the ratio of judgment in the case of Ammonia Supply Co. has decided the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chrome pigments. They fall in Chapter 29 and Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Act) respectively. It is not in dispute that the assessee is not the manufacturer of these products. It buys the same from a manufacturer in bulk quantities in bulk packing. Thereafter, some process is undertaken thereupon, as noted hereinafter and that has given rise to the dispute as to whether such a process amounts to manufacture or not. The process is of repacking and/or labelling. It is thus, an admitted case that the assessee is not a manufacturer in traditional sense. However, by virtue of Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 and Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 32 of the Act, which gives extended meaning to manufacture by cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st that insofar as the process of label or relabelling of containers is concerned, it would amount to manufacture only if the other condition, viz., repacking from bulk to retail pack is also satisfied. The aforesaid view gains credence from other fact, i.e., where the second process is treated as manufacture, viz., adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, the expression any other treatmentand that too, with intention to render it marketable clearly shows that insofar first part is concerned, both the conditions have to be satisfied. 3. Applying the aforesaid 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
