Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of C. Ex. vs Manisha International P. Ltd. on 3 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(152)ELT345(TRI-DEL)
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. Issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether the process of putting stickers by M/s. Manisha International Pvt. Ltd. on the imported goods amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 3 of Chapters 18 & 19 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.
2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that the respondents imported chocolates, sugar confectionary and pasta falling under Chapters 18.17 & 19 respectively; that the respondents re-labelled the products by affixing their labels which reads as under :-
"imported in India by MANISHA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
J-2/16 KHIRKI EXTENTION; MALVIYA NAGAR;
NEW DELHI-110017 Fax 011-7432318 MRP INCLUDE OF ALL TAXES"
3. The learned SDR, further submitted that it is a requirement of Rule 33 of Weight & Measure (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 that all the pre-packed commodities imported into India shall carry a declaration regarding name and address of the importer, general or common name of the commodity packed net quantity, month and year of package, and retail sale price; that as such without putting the declaration containing these informations the product cannot be marketed in the country; that Note 3 to Chapter 17 and Chapter 18, of the Tariff provides that labelling or re-labelling of containers and re-packing from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other term to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture; that in terms of these notes in both the chapters of the Central Excise Tariff, the process undertaken by the respondents made the products marketable and as such the process amounts to manufacture and duty of Excise is payable by them.
4. Opposing the appeal, Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the issue involved in this appeal stands decided by the following two decisions of the Tribunal:
(1) CCE, Delhi-I v. Avon Beauty Products (India) P. Ltd. - 2002 (83) ECC 522,
(2) CCE v. Panchsheel Soap Factory - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 527.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The learned Advocate for the respondents has rightly mentioned that the issue involved in this appeal has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Panchsheel Soap Factory. The assessee in this case had imported toilet soap which was marketed by them after affixing label containing MRP and their name as importer and the department demanded Central Excise duty on the ground that the process undertaken by them amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 6 to Chapter 34. The Tribunal has held 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 Weight and Measures Act. Simply putting a sticker, in our view 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 re-labelling. 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 may not be attracted in such a situation. Note 5 to Chapter 30 is para metcria 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."
6. We also do not find any substance in the submissions of learned SDR 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 Chapter 34 and Note 3 to Chapters 18 & 19 are worded identically. Following the ratio of these decisions we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.