Page 211 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] DOMINO PRINTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX., DELHI-III 97

two appeals against the impugned order demanding duty along with interest
and imposing penalty against the appellant.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the
activity of manufacturing, trading of coding and marking equipment involving
different types of technologies, inks and consumables, trading in spares and
providing after sale service. The appellant have also undertaken the activity of
ink refilling, relabelling and manufacturing facility in Manesar, Gurgaon where
inks related to the coding and marking equipment manufactured and traded by
it are sold. The appellant is also carrying out the following activity :-
(a) Relabelling of imported printing ink reservoir and printing ink car-
tridge before sale without involving any process of refilling. The
original packing is only relabelled.
(b) Refilling from bulk drums of 200 lts/50 lts to small packs consisting
of printing ink reservoir and printing ink cartridges and labelling
the small packs so refilled.
(c) Blending and mixing of chemicals for the manufacture of printing
ink make up solution and packing and labelling.
(d) Relabelling of imported printing make up solution without involv-
ing any process of refilling. The original packing is only relabelled.
(e) Refilling from bulk to small packs of wash solution and labelling.
(f) Relabelling of imported wash solution without involving any pro-
cess of refilling. The original packing is only relabelled.
3. The appellant imported ink in bulk and procured the container from
third parties in open market. The ink was procured and refilled in these contain-
ers and labelled and cleared as such. Various show cause notices were issued to
the appellant by invoking the extended period of limitation on the grounds :
(a) Refilling of ink/labelling of the containers from bulk drums/cans
amounts to manufacture and liable for excise duty.
(b) The Cenvat credit sought to be denied of CVD on the imported
printing ink make up cartridges and wash solution which relabelled
and cleared on payment of duty holding that the activity of label-
ling does not amount to manufacture.
4. The show cause notices were adjudicated and it was held that refill-
ing of ink and labelling of containers from bulk drums to small pack amounts to
manufacture and the same is classifiable under sub-heading 8443 99 60 and 8443
39 10 as parts and accessories of goods of Heading 8443 39. The credit of CVD
was denied on the printing ink make up cartridge and the activity undertaken by
the appellant for labelling the same does not amount to manufacture, therefore,
they are entitled to avail credit of CVD. Aggrieved with the said order, the appel-
lant is before us.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the activity of refill-
ing ink and labelling of containers from bulk drums/cans does not amount to
manufacture as there is no change in nature or character of the product as the ink
remains the ink. Even after the refilling or labelling process was done as such, no
distinct commodity comes into existence. It is further submits that method or
manner of packing of the ink or using of ink would not in any case determine

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  259