<?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>2009 (4) TMI 828 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154880</link>
    <description>Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 62 treats labelling, relabelling, repacking from bulk to retail packs, and similar treatment rendering goods marketable as manufacture. On that interpretation, repacking, relabelling and affixing bar code stickers on imported ready-made garments were treated as manufacture for the limited purpose discussed, and the Revenue&#039;s broader challenge failed. For limitation and penalty, the extended period under Section 11A required proof of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty; absent such evidence, mere non-registration or a mistaken view of law was insufficient. On the same reasoning, mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:23:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=171911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (4) TMI 828 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154880</link>
      <description>Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 62 treats labelling, relabelling, repacking from bulk to retail packs, and similar treatment rendering goods marketable as manufacture. On that interpretation, repacking, relabelling and affixing bar code stickers on imported ready-made garments were treated as manufacture for the limited purpose discussed, and the Revenue&#039;s broader challenge failed. For limitation and penalty, the extended period under Section 11A required proof of suppression or wilful misstatement with intent to evade duty; absent such evidence, mere non-registration or a mistaken view of law was insufficient. On the same reasoning, mandatory penalty under Section 11AC was not sustainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=154880</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>