Page 221 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] DOMINO PRINTECH INDIA PVT. LTD. v. COMMR. OF C. EX., DELHI-III 107

(a) a duty of excise to be called the Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT)]
on all excisable goods [(excluding goods produced or manufactured in spe-
cial economic zones)] which are produced or manufactured in India as, and
at the rates, set forth in the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act,
1985 (5 of 1986).
31. Further Section 2(d) of Central Excise Act, 1944 defiined the excisa-
ble goods.
(d) “excisable goods” means goods specified in the First Schedule and the
Second Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) as being
subject to a duty of excise and includes salt.
32. From the perusal of the above provisions, we find that the duty of
excise levied on the excisable goods which are manufactured in India. Only if the
activity amounts to manufacture will be the question of the rate at which the ex-
cise duty is to be levied is relevant. Merely because an item is classifiable under a
sub-heading it would not have a bearing on whether the activity amounts to
manufacture or not. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has not analysed
the activity of refilling/relabelling whether it amounts to manufacture or not.
The Commissioner has proceeded to simply classify the impugned items and
hold that as the items are classifiable under a particular sub-heading the activity
amounts to manufacture which is not in consonance with the levy provision. In
the absence of any finding made by the Commissioner as regards how the activi-
ty of refilling/relabelling satisfies the test of manufacture no excise duty can be
imposed. We also take note of the fact that there is no deeming provision of refill-
ing amounting to manufacture as per chapter notes of Central Excise Tariff relat-
ing to impugned goods. Section 2(f)(ii) provides certain specified activities are
deemed to be amounting to manufacture as set out in Section or Chapter Notes
of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has im-
ported ink which was refilling in various containers as also the impugned items
were imported and assessed under chapter Heading 3215 of the Customs Tariff,
which is pari materia to the Central Excise Tariff and character, nature and use of
the ink have admittedly not undergone any change and these remained classified
under Heading 3215 90 90. After refilling/relabelling the same shall remain be
classified under Heading 3215 90 90, therefore, does not amount to manufacture.
Further, we take note 7 to chapter 32 deems certain activities in respect of certain
goods of the chapter as manufacture. The said provisions are extracted herein
below :
7. In relation to products of tariff items 3204 19 81, 3204 19 82, 3204 19 83,
3204 19 84, 3204 19 85, 3204 19 86, 3204 19 87, 3204 19 88, 3204 19 89, 3204 19
90 and products of heading 3206, labelling or relabelling of containers or
repacking 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.
The Chapter note 7 to chapter 32 does not refer to Heading 3215 or any
Tariff item. Therefore, as per Chapter Note 7 to chapter 32, the activity shall not
deem as manufacture. Therefore, we hold that the activity undertaken by the ap-
pellant does not amount to manufacture. Accordingly the issue No. 1 is an-
swered in favour of the appellant.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  269