<?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>2015 (2) TMI 824 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256824</link>
    <description>For exemption under Notification No. 47/2002-Cus in the Exim Policy 2002-2007 context, the meaning of &quot;manufacture&quot; is governed by the policy definition rather than section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That policy definition is broad and covers a process that brings into existence a product with a distinctive name, character or use. On the stated record, compaction of granules was treated as a manufacturing process in technical literature, the manufacturing licence and departmental treatment, and the denial of exemption was considered prima facie unsustainable. The material also did not support allegations of suppression or aiding and abetting, so unconditional stay relief and waiver of pre-deposit were granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 14:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 824 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256824</link>
      <description>For exemption under Notification No. 47/2002-Cus in the Exim Policy 2002-2007 context, the meaning of &quot;manufacture&quot; is governed by the policy definition rather than section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. That policy definition is broad and covers a process that brings into existence a product with a distinctive name, character or use. On the stated record, compaction of granules was treated as a manufacturing process in technical literature, the manufacturing licence and departmental treatment, and the denial of exemption was considered prima facie unsustainable. The material also did not support allegations of suppression or aiding and abetting, so unconditional stay relief and waiver of pre-deposit were granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>