News Update

CBEC promotes 124 officers as DCsC2B Transactions - whether liable to GST under RCM?Cus - S.129E did not defeat or render vested right of appeal illusory - condition of pre-deposit is a reasonable condition: HCGoyal calls for adding value to mineral wealth of India20 yrs of ITA Agreement - Membership grows to 82 WTO MembersI-T - Cost of interest on borrowed funds used for acquiring capital asset, can be taken as cost of acquisition of asset: ITATCX - Penalty u/s 11AC would follow, as night follows day, only if, finding is returned that there was an escapement of duty due to conscious and deliberate wrongdoing on part of the Assessee: HCOpposition grows against 12% GST rate on sanitary napkinsGST - CBEC notifies deemed registration rules + substitutes 'provisional ID' by 'GSTIN'GST - Union Govt notifies Composition Scheme for NINE Special Category States + Also under UTGSTUnion Minister launches Digital MSME Scheme; gives away awardsEU slaps USD 2.7 billion penalty on Google for manipulating search resultsCBEC wants speedy clearance of office space for CGST CommissioneratesCBDT notifies format for furnishing Aadhaar details made mandatory from July 1, 2017Action Plan to boost up Cruise Tourism, a growth driver for India: GadkariGST - Some initial problems are bound to be there; Real Estate may be roped in under GST by next year, says FM25 Ministries to turn into e-office by June-end: MinisterGovt issues guidelines on GST RegistrationDownpour throws life out of gear in MumbaiIndia, USA to strengthen defence relations; Guardian drones cleared for IndiaBoard assigns proper officer for Registration and Composition levy under CGST, 2017100 Tweets FAQ released by BoardN-E to benefit from GST: Dr Jitendra SinghST - Respondents not providing service to trainees but to central/state government - classifiable under BAS and exempted under 14/2004-ST: CESTATI-T - Reopening cannot be instituted on basis of DVO's report showing unaccounted cost of construction incurred by previous proprietor, when assessee firm has never even existed: HCCus - DGFT notification is a law and not an executive instruction - merely submitting a declaration of end use is not sufficient : HCUS Supreme Court upholds Trump's temporary travel ban on travelers from six Islamic countries
 
CX -Tanker is not bulk pack, therefore, activity of unloading edible oil and converting into retail pack and labeling is not manufacture: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, FEB 17, 2017: THE case of the Department is that the activity of conversion of edible oil from tanker to retail pack and labeling amounts to manufacture u/s 2(f) of CEA, 1944 and accordingly, the repacked refined edible oil is liable to duty.

In appeal before the CESTAT, the appellant submitted that the issue is no more in dispute as in the appellant's own case decided by the Tribunal vide Order No. A/90742/16/EB dated 01.09.2016, it has been held that repacking of RBDP almolein Oil received in tanker in bulk and repacking them into smaller packs does not amount to manufacture. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Anwar Oils - 2015-TIOL-2837-CESTAT-MUM, Amritlal Chemaux Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-130-SC-CX, Ammonia Supply Co. - 2011-TIOL-1400-CESTAT-MUM, Ruchi Health Foods Ltd. - 2006-TIOL-1948-CESTAT-MAD.

The AR submitted that the demand of duty has been correctly raised and confirmed in view of Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 15 of the CETA, 1985, which reads -

"4. In relation to products of sub-heading Nos. 1502.00, 1503.00, 1504.00 and 1508.90, labeling or relabeling of containers and packing from bulk packs to retails packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to consumer, shall amount to manufacture."

On the Chapter note referred by the AR, the Bench observed -

+ From the chapter note, it is seen that if the goods are repacked from bulk pack to retail packs and also labeled then the activity shall amount to manufacture.

+ In the facts of the present case, the edible oil received in the tanker was unloaded and then converted into retail pack and labeled. As per the judgments relied upon by the appellant, it has been consistently held that the conversion of the product from tanker to retail pack is not conversion of bulk packs to retail packs because the tanker in which goods are received is not bulk pack, therefore, one limb of the Chapter Note that packing from bulk pack to retail pack does not satisfy.

+ Though there is an activity of labeling but as per the Chapter Note 4 prevailing at the relevant time, the activity of repacking from bulk pack to retail pack and also labeling, both should be carried out in order to hold manufacture under Note 4 to the Chapter 15.

+ There is no activity of repacking from bulk packs to retail packs and only labeling alone is carried out, therefore, the activity does not amount to manufacture.

The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed.

In passing: Interestingly, in the matter of the stay application filed by the appellant, the Bench had ordered a pre-deposit of Rs.1 lakh. See - 2006-TIOL-658-CESTAT-MUM

(See 2017-TIOL-499-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS