TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Even assuming that one or two brand names affixed by the respondent are very popular, by affixing the brand name, at highest the value of the footwear will increase - on plain reading of subclause( iii) of clause (f) of Section 2, the activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. On plain reading of subclause( iii) of clause (f) of Section 2, the activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. Appeal dismissed. - Central Excise Appeal No. 135 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2017 - A. S. Oka And A. K. Menon, JJ. Mr.Dwivedi a/w Ms. Shalaka Gujar for the appellant Mr. Mohan Jayakar a/w Nikhil Wable, Ms. Rubina Dodhia, Harsh Moorjani i/b. Jayakar P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ochi and put into boxes without relabeling the boxes. 3. In this Appeal, we are concerned with the activity covered by clause (iii). As regards this activity, the material allegation is contained in paragraph 12 of the show cause notice which reads thus: It further appears that, in the cases where the assessee has received footwear from the karigars, as per para (10)(iii) above, the activity undertaken by the assessee is nothing but opening to container affixing the label of brand on the footwear for marketing the product repacking it. However in this case the goods are actually removed for inspection and for sticking of labels on the footwear and thereafter they are repacked in the boxes. This brings out the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent on the footwear without labelling the boxes. His basic contention is that subclause (iii) clause (f) of section 2 of the said Act is very wide. He submitted that the said clause is attracted when by giving any treatment to the goods the same are rendered marketable to the consumer. His submission is that on the footwear prepared by the artisans, brand names are put by the assessee which renders the footwear marketable to the consumers. He would, therefore, submit that the activity specified in clause (iii) of the paragraph 10 of the show cause notice will be covered by the definition of manufacture under clause (f) of Section 2 and especially subclause( iii) thereof. Inviting our attention to the finding recorded by the Tribunal, he wo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... must note here that there is no dispute between the parties that as far as the activities specified in clause (iii) of the paragraph 10 of the show cause notice are concerned, the same did not involve labelling or relabelling of the boxes in which the footwear manufactured by the artisans is received by the respondent and that the activity is confined to putting brand names of the respondent on the footwear. In view of this admitted position, we will proceed to decide the question of law which was framed on 14th September, 2007. The said question of law reads thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that if the respondents had received footwear from the karigars in the unit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpossible to accept that by giving a treatment to the footwear which is in finished form by affixing brand names renders the product marketable to the consumer. Therefore, on plain reading of subclause( iii) of clause (f) of Section 2, the activity does not amount to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of Section 2. 11. In the case of Nitin Patki (supra), perusal of paragraph 10 shows that the appellant had changed the M.R.P stickers and put his own stickers indicating a higher M.R.P and had also affixed bar code on the boxes of the product. Therefore, in this decision will have no application to the present case. 12. In the case of Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that it is settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statement of the parties given under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the agent of the respondent. The statement confirmed, inter alia, that there was repacking and labelling of the medicaments before sale of the dealer and stock transfer to other depots. 6. What has been overlooked by the appellant is that merely packing for being marketed would not do. The repacking would have to be from bulk packs to retail packs so as to render that the car-board boxes in which the units were placed or the thermocole containers were retail packs . In the case of Ceramics and Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the learned Single Judge held that mere affixation of label on the goods before delivery would not amount to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
