<?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>2005 (2) TMI 619 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115192</link>
    <description>Imported bathing bars could not be classified under Chapter 33 where no material established any difference in composition or use from the same brand previously classified otherwise; the resulting excise duty demand was unsustainable. Affixing MRP labels and promotional slogans did not amount to manufacture because the goods were marketable as imported and the activities did not establish a manufacturing process. Where an independent job worker performed the relevant activity at its own premises, any liability had to be determined against the person undertaking that activity, not the appellant. Consequently, the duty demand, penalty and interest could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 15:37:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=152191" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 619 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115192</link>
      <description>Imported bathing bars could not be classified under Chapter 33 where no material established any difference in composition or use from the same brand previously classified otherwise; the resulting excise duty demand was unsustainable. Affixing MRP labels and promotional slogans did not amount to manufacture because the goods were marketable as imported and the activities did not establish a manufacturing process. Where an independent job worker performed the relevant activity at its own premises, any liability had to be determined against the person undertaking that activity, not the appellant. Consequently, the duty demand, penalty and interest could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>