<?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>2016 (10) TMI 612 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333592</link>
    <description>Repacking edible oil received in tankers into smaller containers was not treated as manufacture under the relevant tariff chapter note because the statutory deeming fiction applies only where repacking from bulk to retail packs, or equivalent conditions, is actually satisfied. On the facts found, the goods were received in tankers and the activity did not meet that threshold. The Tribunal followed prior binding and persuasive authorities on the construction of the chapter note and held that mere packing into smaller containers, without fulfilment of the statutory conditions, does not amount to manufacture. The excise demand therefore failed and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2016 12:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445159" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 612 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333592</link>
      <description>Repacking edible oil received in tankers into smaller containers was not treated as manufacture under the relevant tariff chapter note because the statutory deeming fiction applies only where repacking from bulk to retail packs, or equivalent conditions, is actually satisfied. On the facts found, the goods were received in tankers and the activity did not meet that threshold. The Tribunal followed prior binding and persuasive authorities on the construction of the chapter note and held that mere packing into smaller containers, without fulfilment of the statutory conditions, does not amount to manufacture. The excise demand therefore failed and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333592</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>