<?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>2008 (6) TMI 457 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123998</link>
    <description>Repacking talc powder into 1 kg branded consumer packs with product literature, batch details, manufacturing date and usage instructions was prima facie treated as manufacture because the processed product was marketed as a ready-to-use waterproofing admixture with a distinct name, character and use, falling under Chapter Heading 38244010 rather than mere repacking. The discrepancy between the earlier departmental letter stating that packing, repacking and relabelling was not manufacture and the retail packs showing a manufacturing date was prima facie viewed as misdeclaration, supporting invocation of the extended period of limitation. In view of these findings, complete waiver was declined and only partial pre-deposit relief was granted, with recovery of the balance stayed pending appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:43:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (6) TMI 457 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123998</link>
      <description>Repacking talc powder into 1 kg branded consumer packs with product literature, batch details, manufacturing date and usage instructions was prima facie treated as manufacture because the processed product was marketed as a ready-to-use waterproofing admixture with a distinct name, character and use, falling under Chapter Heading 38244010 rather than mere repacking. The discrepancy between the earlier departmental letter stating that packing, repacking and relabelling was not manufacture and the retail packs showing a manufacturing date was prima facie viewed as misdeclaration, supporting invocation of the extended period of limitation. In view of these findings, complete waiver was declined and only partial pre-deposit relief was granted, with recovery of the balance stayed pending appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>