<?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>2012 (10) TMI 164 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217211</link>
    <description>Repacking or relabelling chemicals constitutes manufacture only where it falls within the deeming provision in Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 29, including repacking from bulk to retail packs or treatment making goods marketable to consumers. Clearance in undisturbed original packing does not constitute manufacture; only goods actually repacked may attract duty. Suppression with intent to evade duty requires proof of deliberate concealment, and mere non-declaration is insufficient. As the repacking activity pre-dated introduction of the chapter note and intentional concealment was not established, the demand was dropped and its dismissal upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2012 23:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 164 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217211</link>
      <description>Repacking or relabelling chemicals constitutes manufacture only where it falls within the deeming provision in Chapter Note 11 to Chapter 29, including repacking from bulk to retail packs or treatment making goods marketable to consumers. Clearance in undisturbed original packing does not constitute manufacture; only goods actually repacked may attract duty. Suppression with intent to evade duty requires proof of deliberate concealment, and mere non-declaration is insufficient. As the repacking activity pre-dated introduction of the chapter note and intentional concealment was not established, the demand was dropped and its dismissal upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>