Case Law Details
Global Adsorbents (P) Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Excise
It is undisputed that the appellant is selling activated carbon in bags with its own name pre-printed on them. Thus, if the appellant is selling the goods with its own name on the packets, it is labeling the product.
The next question is whether it is also packing from bulk to retail packs. From the data presented before us, which is also the basis of the SCN, it is evident that the appellant had in some cases packed 25 kg bags into 50 kg bags, i.e., from smaller bags to larger bags which cannot be called packing from bulk to retail. It is the other way round.
The next question is whether the appellant is also carrying out any other process so as to render the product marketable. The show cause notice alleges that the appellant was re-packing the product after sieving it to the required size because the purchase invoices of the appellant did not contain any grade of the product while the sale invoices had the grade indicated on them. In some cases, where the input invoices had the grade in them, it was found that the grade was inserted later which has been considered as manipulation of invoices by the Revenue. The appellant’s position has constantly been that it has not carried out sieving or any other process and hence the activity would not amount to manufacture and hence no duty is payable. Its purchase invoices did not indicate the grade of the activated carbon. On its request, in some of the invoices the suppliers had indicated the grade later. Hence, there was a difference in hand writing which is presumed by the Revenue to be manipulation of invoices. It produced
Apart from the fact that its purchase invoices / bill of entry do not indicate the grade of the material, while the sale invoices indicate the grade there is no other evidence brought on record by the Revenue that the Activated Carbon was sieved by the assessee. Since the assessee is registered with the Central Excise Department, officers could have gone and inspected and found out if the appellant had the equipment required for sieving the activated carbon to the required grades and was also carrying out this process. In the absence of such direct evidence, the Commissioner has drawn an indirect inference that material was received was sieved only on the ground that the purchase invoices did not have the grade of the material but the sale invoices. In our considered view, this discrepancy may be a cause for doubt but it required further investigation especially when the assessee had categorically denied having ever sieved the material before repacking. In the absence of any positive evidence, we are
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
