https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247566 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that repacking activities did not amount to manufacturing, thus dismissing duty demands and penalties. The appellant was not liable to pay duty on goods clearance as there was no evidence of reprocessing. The Tribunal directed the reversal of credit on destroyed inputs but did not impose penalties, noting the absence of malicious intent. The judgment underscores the significance of differentiating between repacking and manufacturing activities to ascertain duty obligations, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in such determinations. en-us Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Nov 2014 18:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247566 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that repacking activities did not amount to manufacturing, thus dismissing duty demands and penalties. The appellant was not liable to pay duty on goods clearance as there was no evidence of reprocessing. The Tribunal directed the reversal of credit on destroyed inputs but did not impose penalties, noting the absence of malicious intent. The judgment underscores the significance of differentiating between repacking and manufacturing activities to ascertain duty obligations, emphasizing the necessity of concrete evidence in such determinations. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247566