Page 216 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

102 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

ers from the control machine by using the same control machine after which the
containers are sold. We have also seen that printing ink bulk drums is classified
under Heading 3215. We also find that the appellant is importing ink filled above
said containers and affixing the label on such containers. Those containers are
also classified under Heading 3215. The classification of such containers was
never disputed at the time of import of the containers already filled reser-
voirs/cartridges or bottles. Even if when these containers are cleared by the ap-
pellant after affixing the label on the containers the same were classified under
Heading 3215. Only reason for holding that the activity amounts to manufacture
by the Commissioner is that these containers are specific shapes and sizes of im-
pugned items making them compatible with printers manufactured/traded by
them. The impugned items are made as per fitment, which make them unique for
their compatible printers only and hence the amounts to manufacture. But the
Commissioner has dropped the demand pertaining to refilling of ink to Jerry Can
and Bag-In-Box as these products does not have any specific shape and size and
are not fitted inside the printers and are only connected with the printers with
tubes. Therefore, the Commissioner has classified the impugned items as parts
and accessories of the goods of sub-heading 84439 under sub-heading 8443 99 60
but no such proposal was made in the show cause notice. Now have to see
whether the activity undertaken by the appellant amounts to manufacture or not.
The Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 defines ‘manufacture’ as under :-
“manufacture” includes any process, -
(i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured
product;
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or
Chapter notes of [the First Schedule] to the Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as amounting to manufacture; or
(iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Sched-
ule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container
or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or
alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment
on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer,
and the word “manufacturer” shall be construed accordingly and
shall include not only a person who employs hired labour in the
production or manufacture of excisable goods, but also any person
who engages in their production or manufacture on his own ac-
count.
20. From the above provisions of Section 2(f) defines the term ‘manu-
facture’ in an inclusive manner which covers both the processes which are com-
monly understood as manufacture as well as the processes covered in the inclu-
sive clause which are deemed to be manufacture. Hon’ble Apex Court has de-
termined the tests for manufacture is whether the process in question brings into
existence a new commercial commodity which is distinct from the starting mate-
rial, having different name, character or use in the case of Delhi Cloth and General
Mills Ltd. (supra) wherein the Apex Court observed as under :-
14. The other branch of Mr. Pathak’s argument is that even if it be held
that the respondents do not manufacture “refined oil”, as is known to the
market they must be held to manufacture some kind of “non-essential vege-
table oil” by applying to the raw material purchased by them, the processes

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  264