Page 214 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

100 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

13. Learned Counsel submits that there are certain calculations errors
while computing the demand against the appellant, therefore, the impugned or-
ders are liable to be set aside.
14. On the other hand, Learned AR appearing on behalf of the re-
spondent opposed the contention of the Learned Counsel and submits that the
Commissioner has examined the issue in detail thereafter he observed that the
activity of refilling undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture. There-
fore, he submits that ink cartridges manufactured by the appellant is a new
product distinct from the ink and empty container which are brought out prod-
ucts of the appellants. The cartridges having specific size and shape are classifia-
ble under parts of printing machines under chapter Heading 8443. This chapter
heading is having specific entry for the type of cartridges manufactured by the
appellants. The ink cartridges recognised in trade as a new distinct commercial
commodity from the ink and/or ink in bulk containers. To support this conten-
tion, he relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Aspinwall & Co. Ltd. v.
CIT - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.) and Air Liquide North India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2011
(271) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.). He submits that the appellant in their ER.-1 returns filed in
November, 2010 have themselves described the goods as “Printing Ink Cartridg-
es” and have classified the same under chapter Heading 3215 90 90. The appel-
lant has wrongly classified the goods under this chapter. This chapter sub-
heading covers others of chapter heading 3215 ‘Printing Ink, writing or drawing
ink and other inks, whether or not concentrated or solid. The cartridges being
manufactured and sold by the appellant cannot fall under this chapter heading
inasmuch as they are suitably classifiable under chapter Heading 8443. He there-
fore submits that the impugned order is to be upheld.
15. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
16. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides,
following issues emerge :
(a) Whether the activity undertaken by the appellant refilling ink from
bulk containers to different types of reservoir and printing ink car-
tridges shall amount to manufacture.
(b) Whether if the activity undertaken is a manufacture whether the
classification of the goods can be changed by the adjudicating au-
thority without alleging in the show cause notice or not.
(c) Whether the credit can be denied to the appellant if the activity of
relabelling/refilling of imported goods does not amount to manu-
facture wherein such goods has been cleared on payment of duty or
not.
(d) Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable to the facts
of the case or not.
(e) whether the penalty can be imposed on the appellant or not.
17. We find that the appellant has carried out the following activities :-
(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.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  262