<?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>2007 (3) TMI 106 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1799</link>
    <description>Mere machine-assisted packing of branded biris in pre-printed plastic wrappers does not, by itself, amount to manufacture with the aid of machine for classification under the disputed tariff entry. The relevant Chapter Note applied only where labeling, re-labelling, or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs was done with machine aid, and the facts showed no such repacking; the machine was used only to pack biri bundles in wrappers purchased from outside. The objection based on machine credit also failed because the credit had been reversed. On that basis, the departmental challenge to the classification was rejected and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 10:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=41184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (3) TMI 106 - CESTAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1799</link>
      <description>Mere machine-assisted packing of branded biris in pre-printed plastic wrappers does not, by itself, amount to manufacture with the aid of machine for classification under the disputed tariff entry. The relevant Chapter Note applied only where labeling, re-labelling, or repacking from bulk packs to retail packs was done with machine aid, and the facts showed no such repacking; the machine was used only to pack biri bundles in wrappers purchased from outside. The objection based on machine credit also failed because the credit had been reversed. On that basis, the departmental challenge to the classification was rejected and the assessee&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=1799</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>