<?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 (9) TMI 424 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112627</link>
    <description>CESTAT, Mumbai held that tobacco marketed with the label &quot;SAI Bhaiaki Mishri&quot; was correctly treated as branded manufactured tobacco under Heading 2404.90. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 24 deems labelling, relabelling, repacking, or any other treatment that renders goods marketable to the consumer as manufacture for goods under Headings 2401 to 2404. Because the product bore a brand label, the statutory condition of deemed manufacture was satisfied, and the classification adopted by the lower appellate authority was consistent with the tariff and the applicable note. The appellate order in favour of the manufacturer was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:53:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149643" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 424 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112627</link>
      <description>CESTAT, Mumbai held that tobacco marketed with the label &quot;SAI Bhaiaki Mishri&quot; was correctly treated as branded manufactured tobacco under Heading 2404.90. Chapter Note 2 to Chapter 24 deems labelling, relabelling, repacking, or any other treatment that renders goods marketable to the consumer as manufacture for goods under Headings 2401 to 2404. Because the product bore a brand label, the statutory condition of deemed manufacture was satisfied, and the classification adopted by the lower appellate authority was consistent with the tariff and the applicable note. The appellate order in favour of the manufacturer was upheld and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>