9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case have been made for the period immediately after the amendment of Section 2(f). As such, we are of the view that the allegation of suppression made against the appellant cannot be sustained. Consequently, there can be no demand of excise duty beyond the normal period of limitation sanctioned by the Section 11A - the demand beyond the normal period of limitation set aside - the original adjudicating authority directed to re-quantify the demand - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - matter on remand. - Central Excise Appeal No. 692 of 2010 - Final Order No. 55744/2016 - Dated:- 7-12-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri S.V. Arya, Advocate for the appellant Shri R.K. Manjhi, A.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey also cited CBEC Circular dated 3.10.96 wherein it was clarified that the process of tinting does not amount to manufacture. 3. We have heard Shri S.V.Arya, ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as Shri R.K. Manjhi, ld. A.R. for Revenue. We have perused the CBEC Circular dated 3.10.96. In the said said Circular, the CBEC has clarified as follows: 9. Therefore, it is clarified that the process of tinting of base enamel/emulsion paint with strainers to obtain paint of different shades does not amount of manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and if the base emulsion/enamel paint and th stainer are duty paid then the resultant product obtained after tinting would not attract any fresh duty lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e product marketable to the consumer. It is their further submission that the goods are cleared after this process to their dealers and not to the ultimate user of the paint. Hence their argument is that these processes are bing undertaken to make the goods marketable to the dealers and not to the ultimate consumer. They also cited in their support, the case law in the case of Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Jaipur - 2011 (271) ELT 321 (SC) in which the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the phrase marketable to the consumer means marketability to the person who purchases the product for his own consumption. The amended clause of Section 2(f) clearly specifies that the activity of packing or repacking as well as labeling o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owever, this view merits revision amendment of Section 2(f). The appellant have entertained a bona fide view that process of tinting may not be liable to excise duty in the light of long standing practice in the industry and CBEC clarification. It is also to be noted that the demands in the present case have been made for the period immediately after the amendment of Section 2(f) .As such, we are of the view that the allegation of suppression made against the appellant cannot be sustained. Consequently, there can be no demand of excise duty beyond the normal period of limitation sanctioned by the Section 11A. Accordingly, we set aside the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and directing the original adjudicating authority to re-q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
