1. This appeal of the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the activity of relabelling of the goods imported by the respondents during the material period did not amount to manufacture, within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents had imported certain cosmetics in fully packed form and had cleared the same for home consumption after pasting stickers to the containers, in terms of Rule 33(4) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, during the period of dispute. They had not paid duty on such clearances, claiming that the activity of relabelling did not amount to manufacture. This claim of the party was made in their classification declaration No. 6/2000, dated 18-7-2000. The department refused to accept the claim and insisted that Central Excise duty be paid on the relabelled goods at tariff rate. The show cause notice issued in this connection was contested by the party. In adjudication of the dispute, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty, holding that relabelling amounted to "manufacture". The decision of the adjudicating authority was reversed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the party's appeal. The lower appellate authority examined the scope of Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as also the relevant provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and held that pasting of statutory stickers by the respondents on the unit containers of cosmetics ready for sale was not a process of manufacture. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also relied on Trade Notice No. 47/96, dated 21-8-1996 as well as the Board's Circular No.102/4/95-CX, dated 14-5-1996 for taking the above view. In the present appeal, the main ground raised by the Revenue is that the pasting of stickers in terms of Rule 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 was done to make the goods marketable in India and, therefore, if such stickers were not pasted to the goods, the goods could not be considered to be marketable. Any activity which rendered goods marketable was a process of manufacture and any goods which underwent such a process was excisable. This ground has been sought to be amplified by the learned SDR. Yet another ground raised in the appeal is that the trade notice which related to Chapter 30 of the CET Schedule, was not applicable to Chapter 33, which alone was relevant to the subject goods. The learned SDR has also referred to the text of Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 as well as that of Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 and has argued that the use of the conjunction "or" in Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 33 is significant. He has argued that, in Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30, the conjunction used is "and". According to him, this material difference between the two chapter notes has been overlooked by the Commissioner (Appeals) and this has resulted in an error of judgment.
2. Learned Counsel for the respondents, who opposed the above arguments, submitted that the question whether relabelling of imported goods in terms of Rule 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules 1977, was no longer res integra, as this question was settled by the Supreme Court in favour of the assessee in the case of Panchsheel Soap Factory [2003 (156) E.L.T. A382]. Counsel also relied on the Tribunal's decision in German Remedies Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2003 (162) E.L.T. 429 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 391] as also the decision in CCE, Delhi v. Avon Beauty Products (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2002 (53) RLT 917].
3. We have carefully examined the submissions. The short question to be decided upon is whether the pasting of stickers on the imported goods under Rule 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 amounts to manufacture in terms of Note 4 to Chapter 33 of the CET Schedule. We find that, in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Panchsheet Soap Factory [2002 (145) E.L.T. 527], this Tribunal had held that the above activity of relabelling was not for making the product marketable and hence the goods so relabelled was not dutiable.
In that case, the Tribunal was considering Note 6 to Chapter 34. The said Note 6 is similar to Note 4 to Chapter 33, which we are concerned with. The above view was followed by the Tribunal in the case of German Remedies Ltd. (supra). We further note that the appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision in Panchsheel Soap Factory's case has been dismissed by the Apex Court [2003 (156) E.L.T. A382]. The grounds raised in the present appeal are not tenable, as the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the respondents by the decision of the Apex Court.