CCE Vs. SIGMA SCIENTIFIC CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question arising in this appeal of the Revenue is whether the activity in question undertaken by the respondents during the period of dispute amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act by virtue of Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the CETA Schedule. The activity was packing of chemicals (acetic acid, ethyl acetate) from tanker -lorry into barrels and carboys. The names of the chemicals was labeled on these containers before clearance. According to the Revenue, this activity attracted Chapter Note 11, which made repacking from bulk packs to retail packs a process amounting to "manufacture" for the purpose of levy of duty of excise. According to the respondents, there was no such repacking (as envisaged in the Chapter Note) involved in the said activity and, therefore, the goods in question was not dutiable. In support of these cases, the counsel for the respondents has cited the following decisions:

(2.) AFTER considering the submissions and the case law cited, we have found hardly any sustainable ground in this appeal of the Revenue. The subject activity of transferring chemicals from tanker -lorry to small containers cannot be accepted as repacking from bulk back inasmuch as the tank mounted on the lorry is not a 'bulk pack' within the meaning of this expression used in Chapter Note 11. The chemicals were identified by affixing labels bearing their names. There being no bulk pack, there can be no retail packing and, for that matter, the above kind of labeling is also not one envisaged under the Chapter Note. This finding is supported by the apex court's judgment in Commissioner v. BOC (India) Ltd. 2008 (206) ELT 323 (SC), wherein mere packing or relabelling without repacking from bulk pack was held not amounting to "manufacture".