<?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>2017 (5) TMI 944 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343206</link>
    <description>Relabelling imported patent and proprietary medicaments did not amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 where the goods were already packed in retail cartons on import and only stickers were pasted on vials or bottles after removal from master boxes. Chapter Note 5 extends manufacture to specified acts, including relabelling of containers intended for consumers and repacking from bulk to retail packs, but the activity here did not involve repacking and was confined to relabelling alone. Applying the governing principle that relabelling by itself is insufficient, the activity was held not to be manufacture and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 18:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 944 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343206</link>
      <description>Relabelling imported patent and proprietary medicaments did not amount to manufacture under Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 where the goods were already packed in retail cartons on import and only stickers were pasted on vials or bottles after removal from master boxes. Chapter Note 5 extends manufacture to specified acts, including relabelling of containers intended for consumers and repacking from bulk to retail packs, but the activity here did not involve repacking and was confined to relabelling alone. Applying the governing principle that relabelling by itself is insufficient, the activity was held not to be manufacture and the Revenue&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>