<?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>2010 (7) TMI 1124 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188719</link>
    <description>Affixing only a corrected price slip on already packed Histic tablets did not amount to manufacture, because there was no relabelling in the statutory sense and no repacking from bulk to retail packs; the excise demand and penalty on that product were unsustainable. By contrast, rectification and reprocessing of Pen-G Acylase through milling, blending, sifting, repacking and fresh labelling restored marketability and fell within the deeming fiction in Section 2(f)(ii) read with Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29; the process therefore amounted to manufacture and attracted central excise duty. The result was mixed, with relief for one product and duty liability upheld for the other.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451484" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 1124 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188719</link>
      <description>Affixing only a corrected price slip on already packed Histic tablets did not amount to manufacture, because there was no relabelling in the statutory sense and no repacking from bulk to retail packs; the excise demand and penalty on that product were unsustainable. By contrast, rectification and reprocessing of Pen-G Acylase through milling, blending, sifting, repacking and fresh labelling restored marketability and fell within the deeming fiction in Section 2(f)(ii) read with Chapter Note 11 of Chapter 29; the process therefore amounted to manufacture and attracted central excise duty. The result was mixed, with relief for one product and duty liability upheld for the other.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>