and (please note that and was not removed, which should have been done and this is the mistake the Government did, which they are now trying to justify as publisher’s mistake)
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter Notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture, or
(iii) which is specified in relation to any goods by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as amounting to manufacture,
Finally there was another amendment in the Finance Act 2003, which reads as follows:-
135. Amendment of section 2.- In section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) (hereinafter referred to as the Central Excise Act), -
(a) xxxxxxx
(b) in clause (f), for sub-clause (iii), the following sub-clause shall be substituted, namely :-
“(iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer,”.
So after the amendment the Section would read as:-
‘(f) “manufacture” includes any process, –
(i) incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product; and ( The and merrily continues, though Board says it is not there)
(ii) which is specified in relation to any goods in the Section or Chapter Notes of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as amounting to manufacture, or
(iii) which, in relation to the goods specified in the Third Schedule, involves packing or repacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer
So the fact is that and is very much there, was always there and as the Board tries to wash it off, it is not a publisher’s mistake but wholly the government’s mistake. Board’s clarification says, the word 'and' has not been inserted later by any corrigenda or subsequent amendment to Central Excise Act, 1944. Sir, it was there originally; can you tell us by which corrigendum it had been removed?
The fact is the Board messed up when they added the third sub clause to Section 2(f) in 2002. They forgot to remove the word, “and” at the end of sub clause (i). Now they are trying to justify it by blaming the publishers. Unfortunately for them, the publishers in India are far more careful than the Board and have better archives than the Board.
If the Board wanted to remove the and , they could have done it by an amendment instead of giving a clarification that it was not there. In any case they have the undo button. They can amend it with effect from 1986.
CBEC letter in F. No. 4/3/2006/CX.I dated June 19, 2006