<?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>2004 (5) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112297</link>
    <description>Meat products undergo classification under Chapter 2 only if they remain in limited forms such as chilled, frozen, salted, dried or smoked; further preparation, cooking, seasoning or shaping shifts them to Chapter 16 as prepared meat products, so item-wise examination of processing is required. The mark &quot;COSTA&quot; was treated as a house mark because it functioned as a general identifier of the manufacturer across goods, not as a product-specific brand name, and this character was unaffected by later price stickers. Processing that created commercially distinct and marketable preparations was also recognised as manufacture under central excise law, and the dispute was remitted for fresh determination of classification and duty consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:31:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149313" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 430 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112297</link>
      <description>Meat products undergo classification under Chapter 2 only if they remain in limited forms such as chilled, frozen, salted, dried or smoked; further preparation, cooking, seasoning or shaping shifts them to Chapter 16 as prepared meat products, so item-wise examination of processing is required. The mark &quot;COSTA&quot; was treated as a house mark because it functioned as a general identifier of the manufacturer across goods, not as a product-specific brand name, and this character was unaffected by later price stickers. Processing that created commercially distinct and marketable preparations was also recognised as manufacture under central excise law, and the dispute was remitted for fresh determination of classification and duty consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112297</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>