JINDAL DRUGS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are seeking waiver of pre -deposit of the following demands confirmed by way of impugned order:

(2.) THE Ld. Counsel submits that it is an admitted position by the adjudicating authority that applicants are putting labels i.e. label A & label B on the carton. Therefore as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, the activity amounts to manufacture. Therefore, they have rightly availed the credit of duty paid by them and goods have been cleared after this process on payment of duty. Therefore, they have rightly claimed the rebate claim, and therefore the demands are not sustainable. He also submits that the activity undertaken by the applicants was in the knowledge of the departments from the day one as the goods exported are factory stuffed and same were sealed by the Central Excise officer in their factory itself. Therefore, it cannot be alleged that the applicants has taken credit wrongly as their activity does not amount to manufacture, as their rebate claim has already been sanctioned. Therefore, the extended period of limitation is not invokable. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel is that as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 the labelling shall amount to manufacture. The note does not implicate labelling should make the product marketable, in fact the process of adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer cannot be linked with the activity of labelling.

(3.) HEARD both sides.