9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 282X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot a manufacturer of the goods which were cleared by it packing and labeling the same. Some goods are imported and some are indigenously procured. The activity carried out by the appellant in respect of the goods was not manufacture for no processing done. Goods are covered by Chapter 87 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1975. But it does not manufacture for no satisfaction of conditions of section 2(f)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant is also not covered by the provisions of the Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Act. whether goods sold as packed or sold unpacked does not bring any difference to their marketability. Mere packing of the goods does not make the goods marketable. Therefore, the element of section 2(f)(iii) of Central Excise Act, 1944 not being satisfied appellant is not liable to duty. He relied on the following decisions to submit that the activity of the appellant cannot be called as manufacturing since the packing or unpacking is irrelevant for marketing, as goods as such are marketable. (1) Lakme Lever Vs. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 790 (2) CCE Vs. Mysore Ammonia Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (171) ELT 321 (3) Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice filed by appellant he took up the two show-cause notices dated 10.4.2008 and 3.12.2008 along with show-cause notice dated 6.10.2009 for analogous hearing and common disposal. He examined the affidavit of the Deputy Manager (Finance) Shri P. Ganesan and noticed that the goods were cleared by packing and labeling the same. He has not at all passed the order without application of his mind. He went on examining the submissions, materials on record as well as the law applicable to the case. His application of mind revealed from page 9 of the order till page 20. He has recorded that the appellant s manufacturing spare part division was closed as a result of which he was not able to get cooperation of the appellant. He found that because of the shifting of the place that prevented him to make a detailed investigation which was not feasible. He has recorded his helplessness and the difficulties experienced in para 10 of his order. 8.4 Not only the authority examined the affidavit of Shri Ganesan, he also examined his oral evidence dated 30.112007 and he noticed that whenever there was demand for spares from customers those were subjected to labeling and packing and cleared. He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereof. Therefore, there is nothing to doubt the finding of Adjudicating Authority at this interim stage but to endorse to his view as well as contention of Revenue. 10. Learned counsel relied on the decisions aforecited to submit that activity carried out by the appellant does not amount to manufacture. We may state that the law relating to manufacture has undergone evolutionary change from 2003 and legislature was conscious about the marketability of the packed goods while incorporating sub-clause (iii) to section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. 11. We fail to understand why cross-examination is necessary in the present case when the appellant did not justify before the authority below as to necessity thereof. Since cross-examination is not a right to cause prejudice to the other side following dilatory tactics, that is deniable. There was nothing incredibility in the depositions brought out by the appellant. Statements recorded under section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944 is in the course of Judicial proceeding. That cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are prima facie of the opinion that Revenue has a prima facie case for directing predeposit due to shifting of the unit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross cases where the collection of monthly rentals payable by Excise Contractors has been stayed with the result that at the end of the year the contractor has paid nothing but made his profits from the shop and walked out. We have come across cases where dealers in food grains and essential commodities have been allowed to take back the stocks seized from them as if to permit them to continue to indulge in the very practices which were to be prevented by the seizure. We have come across cases where land reform and important welfare legislations have been stayed by courts. Incalculable harm has been done by such interim orders. All this is not to say that interim orders may never be made against public authorities. There are, of course, cases which demand that interim orders should be made in the interests of justice. Where gross violations of the law and injustices are perpetrated or are about to be perpetrated, it is the bounden duty of the Court to intervene and give appropriate interim relief. In cases where denial of interim relief may lead to public mischief, grave irreparable private injury or shake a citizen s faith in the impartiality of public administration, a Court may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
