Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Lal International Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 13 February, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(87)ECC209, 2003(154)ELT520(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. The issue involved in this Appeal filed by M/s. Lal International Pvt. Ltd. is whether affixing of sticker on imported goods will amount to manufacture in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Shri R. Krishnan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants imported chocolates for marketing in India without undertaking any process under the foreign brand name already affixed on the chocolates; that in terms of provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packing of Commodities) Rules, they have to affix the sticker on the imported chocolates containing the statutory stipulations namely, name and address and maximum retail price; that the Revenue has considered the said activity as manufacturing activity and has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty; that the matter stands decided by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Panchsheel Soap Factory - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 527 (Tri. - Del.) wherein it has been held that "simply putting a sticker, in our view, will neither amount to labelling or relabelling, the processes which have been deemed to have been process of manufacture by Note 6" (to Chapter 34). He, further, mentioned that this decision has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. D 21006/2002 filed by the Revenue, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13-12-2002. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi-I v. Manisha International Pvt. Ltd. - Final Order No. 307/2002-D-II, dated 3-12-2002 - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 345 (T). We also heard Shri R.D. Negi, learned Senior Departmental Representative, who relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras v. A.P. Basava Prabhu - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 87 (Mad.).
3. The issue involved in the present Appeal is no more res integra in view of the Tribunal's decision in the case of Panchsheel Soap Factory and Manisha International Pvt. Ltd. In Manisha International Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was importing Chocolate and affixing the label containing their name and address and MRP. The Tribunal relied on the decision in the case of Panchsheel Soap Factory while rejecting the Appeal filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal has held in Panchsheel Soap Factory as under :
"The respondents in the present case, admittedly are only pasting the sticker on the packing of the imported soap to indicate the name of the importer and the MRP which is the requirement under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act. Simply putting a sticker, in our views, will neither amount to labelling or re-labelling, the processes which have been deemed to be a process of manufacture by Note 6. It is not the case of the Revenue that the label has been replaced by a new label or any label has been pasted over the existing label. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed that the process undertaken by the Appellants amounts either to labelling or relabelling. The Central Board of Excise & Customs has taken the same view in respect of imported finished medicines which were sold after pasting sticker on the cartons of the imported item in view of the requirement of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without altering any information originally contained in the packet. The Board clarified that Note 5 to Chapter 30 is pari materia to Note 6 to Chapter 34. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order and therefore, reject the Appeal filed by the Revenue."
3.1 The Tribunal further held in Manisha International as under :-
"We also do not find any substance in the submissions of learned Senior Departmental Representative that the process undertaken by the respondents rendered the product marketable to the consumer as nothing has been done in respect of goods in question. The products were marketable even before affixing label as the same were imported by the respondents from abroad. Note 6 to Chapters 34 and Note 3 to Chapter 18 and 19 are worded identically. Following the ratio of these decisions we reject the Appeal filed by the Revenue."
4. The decision in the case of A.P. Basava Prabhu is not applicable as the facts are different inasmuch as the Respondents therein were purchasing Eucalyptus oil in bulk. Following the ratio of these decisions, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the Appeal.