<?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>1999 (2) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89969</link>
    <description>Adding flavours to softy shake mix and repacking it into 200 ml containers did not constitute manufacture. The goods were already classifiable as dutiable under Tariff Heading 22.02, but in the absence of a relevant Chapter Note during the period treating repacking from bulk to retail packs as manufacture, the subsequent processing was not enough to create a fresh duty liability. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and the duty demand was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:11:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=127031" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 119 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89969</link>
      <description>Adding flavours to softy shake mix and repacking it into 200 ml containers did not constitute manufacture. The goods were already classifiable as dutiable under Tariff Heading 22.02, but in the absence of a relevant Chapter Note during the period treating repacking from bulk to retail packs as manufacture, the subsequent processing was not enough to create a fresh duty liability. The Revenue&#039;s appeal was rejected and the duty demand was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89969</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>