<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 362 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78982</link>
    <description>Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 22 treats filtration, purification, packing and rendering water marketable as manufacture, so the assessee&#039;s bottled drinking water process was held to amount to manufacture. Use of another person&#039;s brand name, including under an agreement, attracted the exemption bar in the small-scale notifications because the goods bore a trade connection with that person, and the denial of exemption was upheld. Non-disclosure to the Revenue regarding manufacture and clearance under another&#039;s brand name supported invocation of limitation, so the demand was not time-barred. Duty and interest were therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 12:45:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=117077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 362 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78982</link>
      <description>Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 22 treats filtration, purification, packing and rendering water marketable as manufacture, so the assessee&#039;s bottled drinking water process was held to amount to manufacture. Use of another person&#039;s brand name, including under an agreement, attracted the exemption bar in the small-scale notifications because the goods bore a trade connection with that person, and the denial of exemption was upheld. Non-disclosure to the Revenue regarding manufacture and clearance under another&#039;s brand name supported invocation of limitation, so the demand was not time-barred. Duty and interest were therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>