Summary
After the amendment effective 1 March 2008, Note 3 to Chapter 18 separately treats labelling or relabelling of containers, repacking from bulk to retail packs, and other treatment rendering a product marketable as manufacture. Relabelling cocoa-product packages at the Taloja unit therefore constituted deemed manufacture even though the goods were already labelled. The Tribunal’s decision permitting credit and export-duty rebate was affirmed and the Revenue’s appeals dismissed.
Issues
- Whether relabelling cocoa-product packages independently constituted manufacture after the 2008 amendment.
- Whether the Tribunal’s consequential credit and rebate decision warranted interference.
Provisions considered
- Chapter 18, Note 3, as amended from 1 March 2008, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985Substitution of “or” for “and” separated labelling or relabelling and bulk-to-retail repacking into independent processes deemed manufacture. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4)
- Section 2(f)(ii), Central Excise Act, 1944A process specified as manufacture in the relevant Section or Chapter notes falls within the statutory definition, including the relabelling undertaken here. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 14, 15)
Held
- Before amendment, labelling or relabelling together with bulk-to-retail repacking formed one composite activity, alongside the distinct marketability-treatment limb. From 1 March 2008, the disjunctive wording made each of the three processes independently sufficient. The marketability requirement in the third limb did not make relabelling dependent on further repacking or enhanced marketability. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4)
- Both Jammu-origin and imported products were relabelled on two sides of their packages at Taloja before marketing or export. That undisputed activity satisfied Note 3 and consequently Section 2(f)(ii), notwithstanding the Revenue’s objection that the packages already bore labels. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 14, 15)
- The Tribunal’s majority decision was correct. The remaining credit, rebate and related issues hinged on the core manufacture question and furnished no basis for interference. Its order was affirmed, and the lead and connected Revenue appeals were dismissed without costs. (¶¶ 5.11, 5.12, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Revenue’s lead and connected appeals dismissed; Tribunal order affirmed, including its consequential credit and rebate relief. No order as to costs.