LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/commissioner-of-central-excise-belapur-vs-jindal-drugs-ltd-20240430/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Commissioner of Central Excise Belapur vs Jindal Drugs Ltd.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
30 April 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 1121 of 2016
Result
Dismissed
Bench
Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 271 : 2024 INSC 354
Acts & Sections
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 5 S.C.R. 271 : 2024 INSC 354
Issue for consideration
The issue for consideration is whether an activity of re-labelling of goods i.e. cocoa butter and cocoa powder, by affixing additional labels on both the sides of the packs containing goods, amounts to “manufacture” in terms of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, for availing the CENVAT Credit and rebate on the duty paid while exporting the said goods.
Headnote

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Note 3 to Chapter 18 – Cocoa and Cocoa preparations – Whether re-labelling amounts to ‘manufacture’ as per Section 2(f) of the Act – Explained: Held: Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (post amendment), which deals with Cocoa and Cocoa Preparations contemplates that if any of the three processes are satisfied, then the activity shall amount to ‘manufacture’, viz., (i) labelling or relabelling of containers; or (ii) repacking from bulk packs to retail packs; or (iii) the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer – In the present case, while upholding the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, it was held that the activity carried out by the Respondent of relabelling on both sides of the packs containing the goods and thereafter, introducing in the market or sending it for export, amounts to ‘manufacture’ in terms of Note 3 to Chapter

18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. [Para 13.3, 15] Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Amendment to Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Replacing the words ‘or’ by ‘and’ – Interpretation of:

Read the full headnote (1 more paragraph)

Held: By way of the amendment in 2008, the word ‘and’ was replaced by the word ‘or’ between the expressions ‘labelling or re-labelling of containers’ and ‘repacking from bulk packs to retail packs’ – Prior to 01.03.2008, the legislative intent was quite clear – The process to constitute manufacture should either be labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs – This process was construed to be one whole – In other words, the activity should not only include labelling or re-labelling of containers but the same should relate to repacking from bulk packs to retail packs – This was one activity – However, after the amendment i.e. post 01.03.2008, Note 3 has undergone a change – Now because of substitution of the word ‘or’ in place of the word ‘and’ between the two expressions ‘labelling or re-labelling of containers’ and ‘repacking from bulk packs to retail packs’, the earlier composite process of labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs has been split up into two independent processes – Labelling or re-labelling of containers is one process and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs has now become another process – Therefore, instead of two activities, Note 3 now contemplates three activities – The composite activity of labelling or re-labelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs has been split up into two activities i.e. labelling or re-labelling of containers is one and the other is repacking from bulk packs to retail packs. [Paras 13.2, 13.3]

Keywords: Manufacturing Activity · Re-labelling, CENVAT Credit, Rebate, Indirect Tax

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgement Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Issue raised in the present batch of appeals is identical. Therefore, the civil appeals were heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order. 3. However, Civil Appeal No. 1121 of 2016 was argued as the lead appeal. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, we would refer to the facts of this appeal. 4. This is an appeal by the revenue under Section 35L (1)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (referred to hereinafter as ‘the Central Excise Act’) against the order dated 16.04.2015 passed by the Customs
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →