Jurisprudentiol - Recent SC Judgements
Central Excise - manufacture - labelling or re-labelling of containers and re-packing from bulk to retail packs:
In so far as the process of label or relabeling of containers is concerned, it would amount to manufacture only if the other condition, viz., repacking from bulk to retail pack is also satisfied. The aforesaid view gains credence from other fact, i.e., where the second process is treated as manufacture, viz., "adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer", the expression 'any other treatment' and that too, with intention to render it marketable clearly shows that insofar first part is concerned, both the conditions have to be satisfied.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Amritlal Chemaux Ltd -
Central Excise - classification - livfit premix, Ayucal Premix and Caldhan suspension - 2302: Preparations of a kind used in animal feeding, including dog and cat food:
There are several reasons given by the Tribunal in classifying these products as animal feed supplements. One important reason in support which is noted by the Tribunal is that the Department's own laboratory, namely, CRCL has opined that livfit Vet is not described in authoritative books for Aurvedic medicines and it can be considered animal feed supplement. Insofar as Ayucal premix is concerned, here again, CRCL has opined that it should be animal feed supplement. Thus, insofar as these two products are concerned, Government's own laboratory has classified them as animal feed supplement and not veterinary medicament.
Please see Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Dabur India Ltd -
Customs - Valuation - value of services that were to be provided post import of the goods, not to be included in value:
On going through the order of the CESTAT, it becomes clear that the CESTAT has gone into the various provisions of the three agreements and has come to the conclusion that neither the fees paid under the Licence Agreement nor under the Basic Engineering, Training and Technical Services Agreement related to the import of the capital goods nor was it a condition of sale and on that basis it has recorded the finding that the provisions of Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) or Rule 9(1)(c) or Rule 9(1)(e) of the aforesaid Rules would apply to the facts of the case. That apart, it further finds that both the Agreements, viz., Licence Agreement as well as Basic Engineering, Training and Technical Services Agreement, pertained to the services that were to be provided post import of the aforesaid goods. On this ground also, the value of these services could not have been loaded into the value of the goods at which those were imported. It is also to be borne in mind that the respondent had purchased various capital components from many other parties and the goods for which the agreement was signed with OEC constituted only 16% of the total value.
Please see Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs Hindalco Industries Ltd -
Until Tomorrow with more DDT
Have a nice day.
Mail your comments to vijaywrite@tiol.in