<?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>2011 (6) TMI 482 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212195</link>
    <description>Transferring ammonia from bulk tankers into smaller cylinders did not amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, because the activity involved only transfer without labelling, re-labelling, treatment to make the product marketable, or repacking of packages. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that such filling of ammonia into cylinders was not manufacture and did not attract excise duty, so no duty liability arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 16:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 482 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212195</link>
      <description>Transferring ammonia from bulk tankers into smaller cylinders did not amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, because the activity involved only transfer without labelling, re-labelling, treatment to make the product marketable, or repacking of packages. The Tribunal followed its earlier view that such filling of ammonia into cylinders was not manufacture and did not attract excise duty, so no duty liability arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212195</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>