TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1091X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us bought out spare items and were constituted items for particular valve. The question of considering this packeting as manufacture does not arise as the O Ring & U Cap seals were already marketable when the supplier/manufacturer had manufactured the same and cleared to appellant. Subsequent packeting of pre-determined quantity of these in a plastic bag has not made the products further marketable. In the absence of any note to the chapter that packeting of pre-determined quantity would amount to manufacture, this activity in our view cannot be considered as a manufacturing activity. O Ring & U Cap seals which were purchased by the appellant from various manufacturers and packeting the same as spares would not amount to manufacture by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority after following the due process of law. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised with interest and also imposed penalties. On an appeal, the First Appellate Authority did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellant and held that the items cleared by the appellant were termed as Seal kits which was a manufacturing activity inasmuch as that the appellant had put in a plastic cover various types of O Ring U Cap seals which can be used for Pneumatic Cylinders valves and the said Seal kits consists of fixed number of particular seals and hence the entire process would amount to manufacture and then only these products become marketable. Coming to such a conclusion, he rejected the appeal filed by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. 2004 (167) ELT 420 (T) 6) Goetze (India) Ltd. 2004 (169) ELT 274 7) CCE vs. Geeta Engg. Works Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 373 8) Kapoor Lamp Shade Co. 2015 (319) ELT 170 (T) 9) CCE vs. Neycer India Ltd. 2015 (320) ELT 28 (SC) 3.1. It is also his submission that the Order-in-Appeal is travelling beyond the allegation in the show-cause notice inasmuch as the Order-in-Appeal states that process of packing of O Ring U Cap seals is a process incidental to the manufacturing process while show-cause notice and Order-in-Original states that the demand is on the Seal kits as component/spares of machine. The issue of manufacturing process was only the subject in the show-cause notice and hence could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. He also submits that these O Ring U Cap seals are specially made to order by the supplier and these O Ring U Cap seals cannot be utilized in any other machinery except Pneumatic Cylinders valves manufactured by the appellant. 5. Having heard both sides and after giving due consideration to the submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue involved in this case is whether packeting of pre-determined quantity of various O Ring U Cap seals in plastic bags would amount to manufacture or otherwise. 6. It is undisputed that the O Ring U Cap seals which are packed by the appellant are sold by them to the customers as Seal kits. It is also undisputed that these quantities of O Ring U Cap seals are fitted into a Pneuma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orial representation is reproduced as to the dispute in question. It can be seen from the picture that ORing U Cap seals are only packeted in plastic bags, this packeting remains undisputed. 6.3. On perusal of various documents like delivery challan and invoice raised by the appellant for the sale of this Seal kits we find that the said invoice, as raised by the supplier, clearly indicates that the O Ring U Cap seals are manufactured and cleared while the invoice raised by the appellant indicate the same as Seal kits which indicate that there are miscellaneous bought out spare items and were constituted items for particular valve. The question of considering this packeting as manufacture does not arise as the O Ring U C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
