9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e will independently amount to manufacture - In the facts of the present case, the appellant have carried out activities of mixing base paint with colourants. Thereafter it is packed in unit containers and sold in the market. Even if it is accepted that the activities is that which render the product marketable to the consumers is manufactured only when the goods are sold to the ultimate consumer, all other activities such as packing or repacking or labelling or relabeling individually amount to manufacture. Therefore, under any circumstances, the activity carried out by the appellant is indeed manufacture. Time Limitation - Held that:- the provision of section 2 (f) (iii) is very clear and there is no ambiguity therein - It cannot be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable Central Excise Duty and without complying with the rules and procedures as provided in the Central Excise Act. The process of mixing base paint with the colourants to obtain the pain of a desired shade is referred to as Tinting . The case of the department is that the process of tinting is amount to manufacture in terms of Section 2 (f) (iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Accordingly, the show cause notice was issued which was culminated into adjudication order whereby on such manufacture and clearances of such paint, after tinting process held to be manufactured and demand of excise duty was confirmed. Penalty was also imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bles Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Surat- III 2011(271)E.L.T. 161 (S.C). Taking note of the support of above judgement he also submits that the penalty in the case of interpretational nature should not be imposed. 3. Shri Sameer Chitkara, Addl. Commissioner (A.R) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order. He also submits that issue is no longer res integra as the identical issue is appellant s own case has been decided by the principal bench of this Tribunal in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v.s Central Excise, Delhi-I 2017 (357) E.L.T. 554 (Tri.- Del.). Therefore, the impugned order is sustainable. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, under any circumstances, the activity carried out by the appellant is indeed manufacture. The absolutely identical issue in the appellant s own case has been decided by the principal bench of this tribunal reported at Berger Paints India Ltd. v.s Central Excise, Delhi-I 2017 (357) E.L.T. 554 (Tri.- Del.) wherein the activity of tinting of base paint with colourants such as stainers to obtain paint of different shades carried out in appellant s depot and cleared after labelling is amounts to manufacture. Therefore, the issue is no more in dispute as the same has been settled against the appellant. As regard the submission of learned counsel regarding time bar and penalty, we find that the provision of section 2 (f) (iii) is very clear an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
