<?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 (12) TMI 304 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219289</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, determining that assembling a combination pack of twin blade cartridges and Gillette shaving gel did not constitute &quot;manufacture&quot; under the Central Excise Act. The appellant correctly paid excise duty based on individual MRPs, not the combined pack MRP, resulting in the penalties and interest imposed being deemed unjustified and set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=192659" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 304 - CESTAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219289</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, determining that assembling a combination pack of twin blade cartridges and Gillette shaving gel did not constitute &quot;manufacture&quot; under the Central Excise Act. The appellant correctly paid excise duty based on individual MRPs, not the combined pack MRP, resulting in the penalties and interest imposed being deemed unjustified and set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>