https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250182 Imported goods that remained under Customs control and had to be labelled with maximum retail price before clearance for home consumption were not treated as having undergone manufacture for central excise purposes; the demand on packages above 10 grams or 10 ml was therefore unsustainable, and the exercise was also revenue neutral because additional customs duty had already been paid on the same MRP basis. For packages of 10 grams or 10 ml or less, where the statutory labelling exemption did not apply, labelling or re-labelling could amount to manufacture, but Cenvat credit of the additional customs duty was admissible. As the activity was undertaken with Customs knowledge, extended limitation and penalty were not available, so liability was confined to the normal period with recomputation on remand. en-us Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250182 Imported goods that remained under Customs control and had to be labelled with maximum retail price before clearance for home consumption were not treated as having undergone manufacture for central excise purposes; the demand on packages above 10 grams or 10 ml was therefore unsustainable, and the exercise was also revenue neutral because additional customs duty had already been paid on the same MRP basis. For packages of 10 grams or 10 ml or less, where the statutory labelling exemption did not apply, labelling or re-labelling could amount to manufacture, but Cenvat credit of the additional customs duty was admissible. As the activity was undertaken with Customs knowledge, extended limitation and penalty were not available, so liability was confined to the normal period with recomputation on remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=250182