ORDER
C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)
1. M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. receive in bulk, gums and pastes classifiable under sub-headings 3505.90 and 3506.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 from M/s. Mihir Industries. They repack the said gums and pastes into smaller containers, affix the label “Camel” and supply them to the dealers of M/s. Camlin Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue Authorities demanded duty from M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. holding that they were manufacturing adhesive gums and pastes. Under the impugned order, Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat quashed the demand. He held that the gums and pastes in question are actually manufactured by M/s. Mihir Industries and that M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. were only repacking into smaller marketable containers. He held that definition of manufacture contained in Section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not permit repacking to be treated as manufacture, attracting levy of Central Excise Duty. He also noted that the relevant chapter and heading did not contain any notes either making repacking the goods covered by the chapter headings to be manufacture.
2. The present appeal is directed against the finding of the Collector that repacking of the gums and pastes did not amount to manufacture. The appeal contends that “the products cannot be marketed without being packed in containers and without being affixed by the brand name on it.” It also contends that “the products cannot be sold in loose condition and in bulk”, in support of the appeal. The appeal also relies on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 776 and the judgments of the CEGAT in the case of Inarco Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay reported in 1987 (31) E.L.T. 469 and in the case of Dipon Textiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 430. During hearing, the learned D.R. reiterated the submissions in the appeal.
3. Heard Shri J.N. Pikle, learned Advocate for M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. He submitted that the contentions raised in the appeal are contrary to facts and settled law. He drew our attention in particular to the finding in the adjudication order that the gums and pastes were sold by M/s. Mihir Industries to M/s. Dandekar Tapes Pvt. Ltd. in loose condition and submitted that the submission in the appeal that the products cannot be marketed without repacking and labelling is contrary to this finding and is without any basis. He also submitted that it is settled law that mere repacking and labelling would not amount to manufacture unless the same are specified in the Tariff itself to be so, which was not the case in respect of the gums and pastes at the relevant time.
4. We have heard both sides and perused the records of the case and have considered the rival submissions. We observe that the impugned order has been passed on a specific finding that the goods in question were purchased by the respondent from another manufacturer in bulk. Therefore, there is nothing to support the contention in the appeal that the goods cannot be sold without repacking and labelling. There is also no error in the finding of the Collector that mere repacking and labelling did not amount to manufacture. In the circumstances, we find no error in the impugned order. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The cross-objection is also disposed of accordingly.