<?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>2006 (3) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117535</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that mixing essences to create food flavors does not constitute manufacture, thus the food flavors are not excisable. It was determined that the royalty received was for trademark use, not linked to food flavor sales, with no nexus between royalty and price. Show cause notices were deemed time-barred due to no evidence of fact suppression. As a result, duty demands and penalties were dismissed, and the appeals were granted with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:50:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154532" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117535</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that mixing essences to create food flavors does not constitute manufacture, thus the food flavors are not excisable. It was determined that the royalty received was for trademark use, not linked to food flavor sales, with no nexus between royalty and price. Show cause notices were deemed time-barred due to no evidence of fact suppression. As a result, duty demands and penalties were dismissed, and the appeals were granted with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117535</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>