Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Labelling Alone Constitutes 'Manufacture' under Excise Law: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s (CESTAT) decision that the activity of labelling and relabelling at Jindal Drugs Ltd.'s Taloja unit amounts to manufacture under Note 3 of Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The judgment underscores the expanded definition of manufacturing processes post-2008 amendment, which now includes labelling and relabelling as independent activities.

Background: The case originated from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, challenging Jindal Drugs Ltd.'s classification of their labelling and relabelling activities at the Taloja unit as manufacturing. The issue revolved around whether these activities qualified for cenvat credit and rebate benefits under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The 2008 amendment to Note 3 of Chapter 18 replaced "and" with "or," thus expanding the definition of manufacture to include individual activities such as labelling, relabelling, or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs.

Amendment to Note 3: The court emphasized the legislative intent behind the amendment to Note 3, which was to broaden the scope of what constitutes manufacturing. Justice Bhuyan stated, "The substitution of 'or' for 'and' was a conscious decision by Parliament to expand the definition of manufacturing processes." This change meant that labelling or relabelling alone could be deemed manufacturing activities.

Labelling as Manufacture: The bench clarified that the respondent’s activity of affixing labels at the Taloja unit falls under the definition of manufacture as per the amended Note 3. Justice Bhuyan remarked, "In relation to products of this Chapter, 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’."

Legal Reasoning: The judgment elaborated on the separation of activities into distinct qualifying processes post-amendment. Previously, the processes needed to be combined to qualify as manufacturing, but the amendment allowed each activity to stand alone. The court asserted, "By replacing 'and' with 'or,' Parliament intended to simplify and broaden the scope, making it clear that any one of these activities would suffice to meet the definition of manufacture."

Justice Bhuyan noted, "The activity of labelling or relabelling alone is sufficient to deem a product as having undergone manufacture, thus qualifying for cenvat credit and rebate benefits." This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to streamline the definition of manufacturing within the excise framework.

Decision: The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the CESTAT ruling and dismiss the revenue’s appeal has significant implications for the excise landscape. By affirming that labelling and relabelling are independently recognized as manufacturing activities, the judgment clarifies the scope of manufacture under the Central Excise Tariff Act, benefitting businesses engaged in similar activities. This landmark ruling is expected to guide future cases and reinforce the legal understanding of what constitutes manufacture in excise law.

Date of Decision: April 30, 2024

Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur vs. Jindal Drugs Ltd.

Similar News