TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .V. Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Hitesh Shah, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Original No. 21/2006 dated 30-10-2006/10-11-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Calicut. 2. Shri B.V. Kumar, the learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri Hitesh Shah, the learned SDR, for the Revenue. 3. Heard both sides. 4. The appellants were engaged in the activity of cleaning, purifying, blending and packing of duty paid Glucovita Glucose-D received from M/s. Corn Products Company (India) Ltd., Bombay, from bulk packs to retail packs, on job work basis. The issue involved is whether the processes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Metlex (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) (viii) CCE, Gujarat v. Pan Pipes Resplendents Ltd. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.) 5.1. During the material time, there was no Chapter Note in Chapter 17 to the effect that in relation to the products of Heading 1702 or any other products falling under Chapter 17, labelling or re-labelling of containers and re-packing from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to 'manufacture'. In the absence of any such Chapter Note., the processes undertaken cannot be treated as manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act as it existed then. He urged the point that the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (T) (x) Kinjin Food Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (144) E.L.T. 223 (T) 5.4 Reliance was also placed on Patna Trade Notice No. 51/87 dated 15-5-1987 [1987 (30) E.L.T. (T4)] in which, it has been stated that mere addition of Til oil and Vitamin 'A' to Hydrogenated V.P. would not lead to emergence of a different product covered by sub-heading 1508.90 of CET. The learned Commissioner did not examine the above submissions made before him. He has not applied his mind to the issue. 5.5 The Show Cause Notice dated 7-11-1990 was issued after the issue of CBEC Circular No. 7/90-CX-1, dated 7-3-1990 stating that the duty paid Dextrose Monohydrate cleared in bulk under CSH 1702.19 when subjected to mixing with 0.6% of Calcium Phosphate and Vit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H.M. Bags Manufacturer v. Collector of Central Excise - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (iii) Paper Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.) 5.7 In view of the above submissions, no penalties can be levied, as there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the appellants. 6. The learned SDR reiterated the impugned order. 7. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The learned Advocate invited our attention to the Circular dated 4-6-1970 in their favour. Hence, it is very clear that they held the bona fide belief that the processes undertaken by them did not amount to manufacture. Only on 7-3-1990, a circular favourable to the Revenue was issued. Therefore, there is force i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
