https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387093 Refilling and relabelling imported or procured ink containers did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act because no new commodity with a different name, character or use emerged; the goods remained ink and Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 32 did not apply. On that basis, the demand founded on manufacture failed. Since the activity was not manufacture, denial or reversal of CVD credit was also unjustified, and duty already paid after clearance was treated as sufficient to protect the credit position. The impugned order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and no penalty survived. en-us Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387093 Refilling and relabelling imported or procured ink containers did not amount to manufacture under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act because no new commodity with a different name, character or use emerged; the goods remained ink and Chapter Note 7 to Chapter 32 did not apply. On that basis, the demand founded on manufacture failed. Since the activity was not manufacture, denial or reversal of CVD credit was also unjustified, and duty already paid after clearance was treated as sufficient to protect the credit position. The impugned order was set aside, the appeals were allowed, and no penalty survived. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=387093