<?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>1998 (12) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89486</link>
    <description>Repacking biris from bulk into retail packs constitutes manufacture only if the evidence shows a true bulk-to-retail conversion under Chapter 24; on the record, the goods were merely wrapped in packets and bags to prevent transport damage, so manufacture was not established. Alleged labelling or relabelling also failed because there was no supporting evidence. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:24:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126548" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (12) TMI 133 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89486</link>
      <description>Repacking biris from bulk into retail packs constitutes manufacture only if the evidence shows a true bulk-to-retail conversion under Chapter 24; on the record, the goods were merely wrapped in packets and bags to prevent transport damage, so manufacture was not established. Alleged labelling or relabelling also failed because there was no supporting evidence. The demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable, and the appeal succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89486</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>