TMI Blog2010 (1) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riods in dispute, the case of the appellants squarely covered by the various judgments of this Tribunal - these processes were not intended to be deemed manufacture at the relevant time – Held that: - appellant’s case is squarely covered by the substantial decisions referred by the learned Advocate and the Apex Court on the identical issue has taken view that the activity taken over by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere engaged in labeling/re-labeling of chemicals. During the course of search, it was observed that the appellant firm was receiving, inter alia, different chemicals from various parties at their premises. After receipt of each consignment of chemicals from different manufacturers m carboys/drums, and before dispatching the same to different customers, the appellant firm removed the labels of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 781 (T), wherein it was held that the phrase labeling or re-labeling was absent in the note to Chapter 37. This fact leads to the conclusion that these processes were not intended to be deemed manufacture at the relevant time. The activity carried out by the appellants cannot be said to be covered by the generic expression 'any other treatment to render the product marketable.' If that were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mere labeling or re-labeling in the absence of any activity of repacking from bulk packs to retails packs would not render the product marketable directly to the consumer. He further placed reliance on Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-V v. Johnson Johnson Ltd. - 2005 (188) E.L.T. 467 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that labeling or re-labeling of containers - Note 3 to Cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned SDR reiterated the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides. 6. We find that the appellant's case is squarely covered by the substantial decisions referred by the learned Advocate and the Apex Court on the identical issue has taken view that the activity taken over by the appellants does not amount to manufacture. We are also in agreement with arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel. Following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
