TMI Blog2007 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24/2007 - Final Order No. 409/2007-EX(PB) - Dated:- 25-7-2007 - [Order per: C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)]. - The appellant imported dietary supplements e.g. Chromium Picolinate 400 MCG, CHROMAX II. At the time of import, they were in retail packets of 90 capsules etc. The packets were also labelled with maximum retail price, name of the manufacturer (Mega Pro) etc. 2. After customs clearance, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended that affixing of the aforesaid label did not come within the scope of the note or definition and therefore, no manufacture was involved. This contention was rejected in adjudication as well as in the first appeal. Though the Commissioner accepted that the first part of the note ("labelling or re-labelling of containers and re-packing from bulk packs to retail packs") was not attracted to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut that, the first part is not clearly attracted in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Johnson Johnson Ltd. reported in 2005 (188) E.L.T.467. With regard to the second part, the submission of the ld. Counsel is that fixing an additional label is not "any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer," in-as-much as the produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as imported. It was in retail packets with all the required particulars affixed on the packet. Maximum retail price was also mentioned on the packet. Therefore, affixing of the label was not a requirement for "making the product marketable". The terms, "render the product marketable to consumer" cannot be interpreted so as to mean and include every treatment as held by the Commissioner. If that be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
