M/S Air Liquide North India Pvt vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Jaipur

Issue for consideration is whether repacking of gas purchased in bulk after some testing processes would amount to manufacture..

Introduction:- The issue which falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the treatment given or the process undertaken by the appellant to Helium gas purchased by it from the open market would amount to manufacture, rendering the goods liable to duty under Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act, in relation to `manufacture', reads as under: "10. In relation to products of this chapter, labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer shall amount to manufacture."
In order to answer the aforesaid issue which arises for our consideration, it would be necessary to set out some facts giving rise to the present appeal. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Oxygen, Nitrogen, Carbon-di-oxide and other gases classifiable under Chapter 28 of the Act. The appellant had purchased Helium gas during the period commencing from December, 1998 to 31st March, 2001, from the market in bulk and repacked the same into smaller cylinders after giving different grades to it and then sold the same in the open market. The appellant purchased the said gas for 520/- per Cum. Various tests were conducted on the gas so purchased and on the basis of the tests and some treatment given, the gas was segregated into different grades having distinct properties and sold at different rates to different customers.


Argument on behalf of Appelant:- Argued that the appellant had only conducted various tests like moisture test, etc. to determine quality and quantity of Helium gas in the cylinders. It was further submitted that even after the activity of testing, Helium gas remained as Helium gas only and there was no change in the chemical or physical properties. No new product, other than Helium gas came into existence and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had carried on any manufacturing activity.


When purchased by the appellant, was already marketable and, therefore, it cannot be said that the testing of the gas by the appellant had rendered the product marketable. In the circumstances, the process of testing cannot be said to be a manufacturing process, rendering the product marketable. It was also submitted that the crucial requirement for the application of the last portion of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act is that by adoption of some treatment, the product should become marketable to the consumer. According to the learned counsel, the product, i.e. Helium gas was already in a marketable state when it was purchased by the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant made it marketable. To substantiate his claim, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the cases of CCE v. LUPIN LABORATORIES 2004 (166) A116 (SC) and LAKME LEVER LTD. v. CCE 2001 (127) ELT 790 (T).
The learned counsel for the appellant brought to our attention a decision of this Court rendered in the case of BOC (I) Ltd. v. CCE 2003 (160) ELT 864 to substantiate his claim that the issuance of certificate along with the cylinder at the time of sale does not amount to re-labelling


Appeal of Respondent:-Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the testing of Helium gas comes under the category of "treatment" as mentioned in Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act and that the Tribunal has clearly given a finding to that effect.

issuance of a separate certificate along with cylinder at the time of sale containing all the details regarding moisture, purification, etc. amounted to re-labelling of the gas cylinders.


It is pertinent to note that when the appellant was asked about the process which was being carried out on Helium gas before selling it to its customers, the representative of the appellant had refused to give any detail with regard to the process because, according to him, that process was a trade secret and he would not like to reveal the same. Thus, the respondent or his subordinate authorities were not informed as to what was being done by the appellant to Helium gas purchased or what treatment was given to the said gas before selling the same to different customers at different rates with different certifications in different containers/cylinders. It is also pertinent to note that the gas which was purchased at the rate of about 520/- per Cum. was sold by the appellant at three different rates namely 700/-, 826/- and 1000/- per Cum. and thereby the appellant used to get 40% to 60% profit.


From the above undisputed facts, it is clear that the gas cylinders were not sold as such but they were sold only after certain tests or processes as specified by the customers of the appellant. It is also clear that only after the analysis and tests, it could be ascertained as to whom the gas was to be supplied and at what rate. The various tests resulted into categorization of the gas into different grades



The fact that the gas was not sold as such is further established from the fact that the gas, after the tests and treatment, was sold at a profit of 40% to 60%. If it was really being sold as such, then the customers of the appellants could have purchased the same from the appellant's suppliers. When this question was put to the officer of the appellant, he could not offer any cogent answer but merely stated that it was the customers' preference. Further, he did not give proper answer as to how the profit margin was so high. The appellant had supplied the gas not as such and under the grade and style of the original manufacturer but under its own grade and standard. Further, while selling the gas, different cylinders were given separate certificates with regard to the pressure, moisture, purification and quality of the gas. This explains the high price at which the appellant was selling the gas.



Therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal has rightly observed that if no treatment was given to the gas purchased by the appellant, customers of the appellant would not have been purchasing Helium from the appellant at a price 40% to 60% above the price at which the appellant was purchasing.


For the aforetasted reasons, we agree with the Tribunal in holding that the appellant is liable to pay excise duty for the reason that it has manufactured Helium within the meaning of the term `manufacture' as explained in terms of Chapter Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Act.

a material is purchase before taking the excise number. after taking the excise number, the goods so purchased is to sell without any change i.e. as it is purchased. whether the excise duty shall be applicable on this sale or not?

Dear all Experts

We are registered manufacturing company in excise. We sale Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles .CETSH No 87089900.we have rejected material of past few year our vendor not taken it back. We want to sell it as a scrap. We want to know what the process of scrap sale in the point of excise and what the procedure to sell it as a scrap.

Thanx and Regards,

Amit

WHAT IS THE BASIC EXEMPTION AMOUNT FOR REGISTRATION UNDER EXCISE.
AND PROCEDURE FOR REGIASTRATION FOR SSI UNIT UNDER EXCISE

SIR.,
WHETHER BASIC CUSTOM DUTY IS ALSO PAYABLE ON EXPORTATION OF GOODS IN SOME CASES ? .,, SIR ACTUALLY I WANT TO ASK WHETHER WE CAN CALL THE EXPORT DUTY AS BCD?

Can RG 23 register be maintained on computer system or it is strickly maintained on manually only..
Thanks in advance.

We are selling dutiable goods to all major auto OEM under bills discounting procedure.

We are mentioning the discount amount on the invoice.

My query is duty is charged on the basic value or on the discounted value.

If possible kindly give me the rule details.

Thanks,

if a mfr has been taking CENVAT credit on inputs or Input services, subsequently opts for 100% exemption from excise duty/service tax.

A . he shall be required to pay an amount equivalent to CENVAT credit if any taken by him in respects of inputs-
-lying in stok,
-lying in process,
-contained in final products lying in stock
-contained in taxable services to be provided

on the date when such exemption is opted for/granted

B. after deducting the said amt bal. credit shall lapse.

i m unable to understand practically how it will be done. i mean in respect of every inputs wheter it is consumed in FG/wip etc. it will show bal in receivable a/c & we have to reverse full amt then how can there be balance. i have seen illustration but still i am unable to understand it logically. please someone explain me the logic behind this preferably by passing journal entries.

WAITING URGENLTY FOR YOUR REPLY.

Dear Sir,
Kindly guide us for our new unit(ESTABLISH in 2011) and registered in excise as a manufacturer and paying CE duty From Rs.1/- on branded items and now we have received order for unbranded items.
Can we avail the exemption 1.5 cr on unbranded manufacturing items, because party not paying the duty.
Second q. is what MRP we charge to party because the branded item and unbranded item is same and what rate we show in invoice.
Can we file single ER1 for this.
Kindly guide us.
Thanks & Regards,
Kalpana

wHAT IS THE PROCEDURE OF EXPORT AND IMPORT? WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED FOR EXPORT AND IMPORT. WHAT DOCUMENTS ARE PRESCRIBED BY RBI FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF IMPORTS.