Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 242 - AT - Central ExcisePacking of Goods From Regular to Small Packages - Whether the packing of soda ash from regular marketable packages into smaller packs was a manufacture or not - Held that:- The soda ash in bags of 50/75 kgs. were mainly meant for industrial consumers to whom the appellants had sold from their Registered premises at Rishra by raising dealer’s excise invoices and passed on the element of excise duty paid by the manufacturer M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. - the customers were eligible to avail Modvat credit/Cenvat credit on the duty paid on soda ash - It was admitted by the Appellants that the soda ash were repacked into smaller packs of 500 gm/1 kg to cater the needs of the small household customer i.e. retail consumers at the behest of M/s. Tata Chemicals - Obviously, these customers were not interested in availing Modvat/Cenvat credit on the amount of duty paid on the soda ash. Therefore, the activity of re-packing from bags of 75/50 kgs., even if these were termed as “standard packs”, cannot lose the characteristic of “bulk packs”, since these were meant for Industrial consumers, whereas smaller packs of 500 gm/1 kg made out of such bulk packs, were to meet the requirement of retail customers and hence safely be concluded as “retail pack”. The process of transferring/converting the bulk packs of soda ash in bags of 75/50 kg into smaller/retail packs of 500 gms/1 kg and affixing with the brand name of M/s. Tata Chemicals would result into “manufacture” within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 and leviable to duty - The Adjudicating Authority had rightly confirmed the demand invoking the extended period - Also since, there was an element of suppression and non-disclosure of the activity of re-packing from bulk pack to smaller packs and selling the same affixing brand name of M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. from their unregistered premises, without payment of duty and without disclosing their said activity to the department, the penalties imposed on both the appellants were also justified - Decided against the assessee.
|