Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Aero Pack Products vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 10 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(81)ECC295, 2002ECR232(TRI.-MUMBAI), 2002(142)ELT577(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. The appellant purchased mould release preparation classifiable under Heading 3403 from its importer, Castrol Ltd. It packed this into small aerosol 500 ml cans, putting in these cans the gas required to propel the substance. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the finding of the Asstt. Collector impugned before him that this activity amounted to manufacture.
2. Counsel for the appellant contends that the activity that was undertaken was one of repacking from bulk to a form suitable for use by the consumer. The addition of the liquid petroleum gas was only to facilitate use of the product and its better application. The same use would have been achieved by applying the liquid by means of a medium such as swab. There has therefore no new commodity with name, character and use emerged.
3. The departmental representative relies upon the reasoning in the impugned order.
4. The only reason that the Commissioner (Appeals) offers for the conclusion that the process is manufactured and the mode of the use of goods has changed and there is substantial value addition. The addition of value cannot by itself justify the conclusion that it is a result of manufacture, in the absence of a deeming provision in law to this effect. At the relevant time, there was no provision that repacking of these goods amounted to manufacture. It is also not correct to say that the mode of use has changed. The use of the preparation was by applying it to the surface work piece. It is the method of such application that has changed. This change alone does not satisfy the requirement of a new product with a different name and use has emerged. The finding of the Tribunal in Indrol Lubricants & Specialities Ltd. v. CCE [1999 (111) E.L.T. 544] that blending of two or more lubricating oils does not amount to manufacture for the reason that the resultant oil was not differently known in the market would apply to the facts before us.
5. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order set aside.