<?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 (7) TMI 586 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119317</link>
    <description>Returned duty-paid gelatin capsules reprocessed by treatment, blending, mixing, reblending, repacking and restoration to usable condition were treated as covered by Rule 173H because the rule permits remaking, refining, reconditioning, repairing or similar processes that do not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal read &quot;reconditioned&quot; and related terms in their ordinary sense and held that the same operations being used in original manufacture did not exclude the activity from the rule. As the duty demand failed on that basis, the penalty under Rule 173Q also could not survive. The order confirming duty and penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:11:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=156314" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 586 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119317</link>
      <description>Returned duty-paid gelatin capsules reprocessed by treatment, blending, mixing, reblending, repacking and restoration to usable condition were treated as covered by Rule 173H because the rule permits remaking, refining, reconditioning, repairing or similar processes that do not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal read &quot;reconditioned&quot; and related terms in their ordinary sense and held that the same operations being used in original manufacture did not exclude the activity from the rule. As the duty demand failed on that basis, the penalty under Rule 173Q also could not survive. The order confirming duty and penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=119317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>