<?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 (2) TMI 409 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117677</link>
    <description>Labelling and re-labelling of P or P medicines through loan licencees and job workers constituted manufacture under Chapter Note V of Chapter Heading 30, so the assessees could claim the job-work and small scale industry exemptions. The absence of their own factory registration or infrastructure was immaterial because the manufacturing activity was carried out through job workers and loan licencees in the manner contemplated by the notifications. The record also showed movement under job-work challans, required declarations, and clearances within the exemption limit; the Revenue did not establish excess clearances. Denial of the exemption notifications was therefore not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:43:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154674" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (2) TMI 409 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117677</link>
      <description>Labelling and re-labelling of P or P medicines through loan licencees and job workers constituted manufacture under Chapter Note V of Chapter Heading 30, so the assessees could claim the job-work and small scale industry exemptions. The absence of their own factory registration or infrastructure was immaterial because the manufacturing activity was carried out through job workers and loan licencees in the manner contemplated by the notifications. The record also showed movement under job-work challans, required declarations, and clearances within the exemption limit; the Revenue did not establish excess clearances. Denial of the exemption notifications was therefore not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117677</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>