<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1173 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384984</link>
    <description>Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 27 applies only to lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of Heading 2710, so products under the same heading that are not lubricants are outside the deeming provision. Where lubricating oils are labeled, relabeled, repacked into retail or consumer-suitable containers, or otherwise rendered marketable to consumers, those processes amount to manufacture even if cleared to bulk users, and duty follows. By contrast, bulk clearances without label and without consumer marketability are not covered on the verified facts. Penalty under Rule 25 was not sustainable because the notice did not state specific grounds, and the demand was remanded for fresh factual verification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2019 07:46:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=585055" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1173 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384984</link>
      <description>Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 27 applies only to lubricating oils and lubricating preparations of Heading 2710, so products under the same heading that are not lubricants are outside the deeming provision. Where lubricating oils are labeled, relabeled, repacked into retail or consumer-suitable containers, or otherwise rendered marketable to consumers, those processes amount to manufacture even if cleared to bulk users, and duty follows. By contrast, bulk clearances without label and without consumer marketability are not covered on the verified facts. Penalty under Rule 25 was not sustainable because the notice did not state specific grounds, and the demand was remanded for fresh factual verification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>