By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 31, 2015: THESE are Revenue appeals.

The AR submitted that there is no dispute as to the facts that the respondent undertook repacking activity of various types of edible oil into retail containers with brand name and has repacked the same from the tankers. Attention is also drawn to Note 4 of Chapter 15 to submit that the said note created a deemed fiction of manufacturing viz. labeling or relabeling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs would amount to manufacture. Inasmuch as the respondent had adopted the treatment of rendering the product marketable by repacking from tanker to retail packs.It is also emphasized that the first appellate authority has incorrectly relied upon the judgment of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Ammonia Supply Co. - 2011-TIOL-1400-CESTAT-MUM.

The respondent referred to the same Chapter Note and submitted that the labeling or relabeling of container is to be done and repacking from bulk pack to retail packs is to be considered together for holding the activity of manufacture; that the issue is no more res integra as the Apex Court in the case of Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-130-SC-CX have settled in law. Reliance is also placed on the decision in JPB Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Hitesh J Gandhi - 2015-TIOL-2084-CESTAT-MUM on a similar issue held in favour of the assessee.

The Bench considered the submissions and observed that the first appellate authority had correctly followed the law as has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Ammonia Supply Company - 2002-TIOL-179-CESTAT-DEL to hold in favour of the respondent.

The CESTAT reproduced the findings of the lower appellate authority wherein it is observed that the respondent was receiving the edible oil in tankers and which cannot be considered as a bulk pack, and this finding had not been controverted by the Revenue.

It is also noted that the Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 15 employs the same words as Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29 wherein the fiction of repacking/re-labeling is deemed manufacture and this chapter note 11 was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Amritlal Chemaux (supra) and the law was settled in favour of the respondent.

Holding that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity, the Revenue appeals were rejected.

In passing: Also see Board Circular 1007/14/2015-CX. dated 12.10.2015, DDT 2703 & DDT 2745.

(See 2015-TIOL-2837-CESTAT-MUM)