<?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 (11) TMI 1091 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335073</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the packeting of O Ring &amp;amp; U Cap seals by the appellant did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that repackaging the seals did not enhance their marketability as they were already marketable when purchased. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2017 16:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=449163" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1091 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335073</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the packeting of O Ring &amp;amp; U Cap seals by the appellant did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that repackaging the seals did not enhance their marketability as they were already marketable when purchased. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>